# My essay on Horse Slaughter



## crimson88

Ok let me say this first: There are many varying opinions about horse slaughter and I respect that. In my college writing class we were asked to write an argument/persuasive paper on a topic of our choice. So what better than to choose horse slaughter as a topic! This is my opinion only, not posting it to shove it down anyone's throat. My opinion, as well as anyone else's is not wrong or right. Just making that clear as this is such a touchy topic (especially on a horse forum ha!) 
Anyways, I just thought I’d share with my fellow horse enthusiasts. Please enjoy reading! 



> Ask anyone in the equine industry today, and they would most likely all agree that there is a huge problem with horse over population in the United States. It has been an ongoing issue for the past few years. There are several factors as too why there are so many unwanted horses. There are also several solutions to fix the problem in the equine market. Breeders, trainers, horse brokers, owners, and basically anyone involved with horses want to solve the problem.
> One of the factors due to the increase of unwanted horses is the poor economy. Horse ownership has turned into a luxury, because of the cost of maintenance. Horses can't be sustained on just grass from a field. They require hay, grain, vitamins, and possibly additional supplements on top of that. Hay and grain prices have risen, because of the high cost of diesel fuel used to harvest, and transport the product. Boarding a horse at a horse stable runs anywhere from three hundred and fifty dollars, to four hundred and fifty dollars per month, and up depending on quality of care. Since the cost of owning a horse has become so pricey, many people have decided to not own horses anymore. Simply selling a horse, or even giving it away isn't an easy thing to do. There is very little interest in any horse trading.
> People are breeding more horses than there are homes for. Breeding horses has become a popular hobby for many people involved in the equine industry. Many breeding farms, or horse owners breed anywhere from five to twenty or more foals a year. Larger scale breeding farms may breed a hundred or more foals in a year. The American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA), is one of the biggest horse registries in the world. Nearly one hundred and fifty thousand new foals are registered each year in that registry alone. There are approximately three hundred equine registries in the United States. Each one of these registries has breeders who produce new foals each year. When you consider the amount of foals born under each registry, and as well as foals from unregistered horses there are nearly (if not more) a million new foals being born each year.
> One of the most controversial solutions to stop the problem of over population is slaughter. In 2007, the remaining equine slaughter plants in the United States were shut down because of the lack of funding to pay USDA to inspect the meat. Many people involved with the dying horse market believe that by bringing funding back to bring slaughter back to the United States, the unwanted horses such as the old, sick, crippled, and dangerous can be easily disposed of, and make the horse market slowly revive. However, after the USDA quit inspecting the meat, thousands of American horses are being shipped to Canada and Mexico to be slaughtered.
> Many believe that slaughtering horses is a humane way to relive the excess unwanted horse population quickly. Since it’s us who bred so many horses, it’s our responsibility to reduce the numbers while utilizing the meat for food, and bi-products for other uses. Anyways, what’s the difference of slaughtering pigs, cows, chickens, goats, and sheep? They are all livestock. Slaughtering horses is a cheaper option than euthanizing them, as it can cost two hundred or more dollars to euthanize and dispose of the body. Because the cost of euthanasia, unwanted horses may starve to death if the owner cannot find them a home or afford food. Slaughtering them would mean less suffering.
> Many people like to believe that the only horses used for slaughter are the old, crippled, sick, dangerous, or miserable horses. While some are old, lame or sick, hundreds of horses killed are young, healthy, ride able and fit. USDA/APHIS studied and recorded 92% of American horses killed in American Slaughter Plants were in good health. Kill buyers sell horses to the Slaughter Plants by the pound; therefore they prefer a normal weight horse over a skinny horse. “Wild for Life’s” case study revealed that seventy percent of all registered Thoroughbred foals born are slaughtered each foal crop.
> Unlike the old, crippled, sick and used up dairy cow you eat in your hamburger, the majority of horses slaughtered are rejects from breeding farms (rejects meaning that they weren't born a desired color, gender, size, or the right body type/conformation), untrained youngsters, broke saddle horses, show horses, breeding horses, race horses, pet horses, 4-h horses, wild horses, or PMU foals.
> Meat buyers pack as many horses as they possibly can fit into trucks designed for hauling of livestock such as goats, sheep, pigs, and cattle. Often during transport , double decker trucks are used, which are outlawed in the United States as a way to transport horses for slaughter. These trailers are not designed to accommodate average sized horses. The horses spend long hour trips hunched over, packed tightly together through extreme climates such as excessive heat, and bitter cold. Horses on the bottom deck often get showered in manure and urine.
> Death and injury is not uncommon during transport. Horses can become injured from kicks, falls, being slammed into walls, or hitting their head. Livestock trailers also have low set ventilation openings in which horses can get their hooves caught in resulting in broken legs. Some of these livestock trucks are roofless, exposing horses to the elements such as rain, snow, or beating sun. These types of trucks also endanger horses of breaking their necks, or decapitation from road signs, over passes, traffic, low branches, and more. Horse's do not receive food, or water in transport which sometimes can be over four hours at a time.
> The slaughtering process is fairly similar to that of a cow. A captive bolt strikes the animal, to knock it unconscious. However, a study shown proves that the captive bolt is much more ineffective on a horse versus a cow as it is more difficult to get an accurate shot on a horse since they are not restrained like cattle are. This is because a horse has a longer neck, and has more ability to struggle and move. Also, horse's brains are set back further than a cow, which means the captive bolt, or gun must be positioned at the correct angle, and distance to accurately kill the animal. Most of the time, it takes several attempts before the animal is actually dead. Some slaughter plant's kill horses with a gunshot to the head, but this doesn't make for a fast or instantaneous death either. Several shots may need to be applied to the horse and often it is left conscious while it flounders on the ground until the horse bleeds to death.
> Mexican Slaughter Plants have no standards or regulations. The horses are either killed by gunshot, captive bolt, or a hand held spike is repeatedly stabbed into the horses back or wither area to sever the spinal cord. The last method mentioned does not kill the horse, but instead immobilizes the conscious horse. The horse remains conscious through the bleeding out, and skinning process.
> By looking in my horse's First Aid box I found many chemicals, and substances that have "Do not use on horses intended for human consumption" labels on them. Some of the toxic and deadly substances that remain in horse meat is fly spray (a toxic insecticide that is absorbed through the skin or be given to the horse orally), de-worming treatments, and prescription medications. Horses are not raised as food animals in the United States and removal of the horses treated with these banned substances is inadequate as there are no testing procedures to determine if the horse is “toxic”.
> Humans who eat horse meat are at a high risk for being poisoned by one of the many FDA banned substances used on horses prior to being processed. One of the most common and serious drug used on horses is Phenylbutazone, known better as "bute". On horses it's used as a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, developed for treating severe cases of arthritis, and for other reasons but it was found to cause serious and lethal idiosyncratic adverse effects in humans.
> Many horses slaughtered were previously race horses, or riding horses, and the chances of them having been treated with something such as bute or any other veterinary chemicals or substances is quite likely. It can take anywhere up to sixty or more days for the toxic substances to wear off. Horses stand in kill pens for only a few short days before being processed, nowhere near long enough for the substances to wear off. Both Mexican and Canadian Slaughter Plants claim to test horses for the banned substances but upon several studies, F.V.O found several violations at the plants.
> Isn't it better for the unwanted horses to be killed rather than starve to death in its pasture? The horse's owner should be responsible for the horse, and letting the horse starve to death because the owner cannot afford to feed it is irresponsible. While it is difficult in this tough economy, there is always _something_ the owner can do. Some 501c horse rescues hold “low cost euthanasia clinics” to the public, where veterinarians are willing to euthanize the horse and dispose of the body for a reduced amount. In some states, some horse rescues also have “hay banks” which are food banks for horses. If horse owners are having difficulty feeding his or her’s horses, they can get free hay to help them feed the horses until they are financially stable and can afford their own.
> Another option for horse owners is to make it public. While it is a very troubling economy, posting the horse on a free online classified service or even Facebook, may find the horse a home. There are a lot of online forums that network with each other. Horses that are danger of starving can be shared across the country to millions of people within seconds. More times than not, there is someone who will take the horse.
> Won't re-opening slaughter bring more money to the U.S.? This is a yes and no answer. Yes, it will provide low skilled workers with jobs. However, the three Slaughter Plants previously in business (Dallas Crown in Kauffman, Texas and Beltax Corporation in Fort Worth, Texas and Cavel International in DeKalb, Illinois) were all owned by Belgian owners. Each year the United States exported more than forty-two million dollars of horse meat, and the majority of the profits would go to the foreign owners.
> Horse slaughter is a cruel, and unnecessary solution to fixing the problem of unwanted horses in the United States. The only way to humanely reduce the number of horses is too stop breeding large amounts of new foals each year. Until horse breeders, and owners realize that breeding even just one less foal a year can affect the future, we will continue to have the ongoing problem of starving, homeless horses.


----------



## WesternBella

Great essay, I agree with a lot of it but you could definitely be using some commas instead of periods in some places. Sorry if you didn't want any kind of critique, I'm just an English nerd 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## crimson88

No problem, comas are my nightmare! I'm going to have a tutor edit it tommorrow.


----------



## Cherie

It is not an essay but a biased rant written by someone with an agenda. Much of it is inaccurate and is taken directly from the biased agenda of the animal rights nuts. Their real agenda is to stop ALL livestock, horse and pet ownership. 

Fraudulent organizations like PETA, HSUS and ALF, that also frequently contain animal terrorists, have worked to spread the lies and half-truths that you are repeating.

I suggest that if you really want to write a credible paper that YOU actually research and look to other sources than the animal rights nuts with an agenda. Check the AVMA and the AAEP websites. They are licensed Veterinarians with no agenda other than to help animals and relieve suffering. 

I also suggest that you personally contact a dozen 'country Vets'. These are the Veterinarians that practice out of small clinics in rural areas where they doctor large and small animals. They are NOT the big equine centers that doctor high-dollar show and race horses.

I HAVE visited with many of them. They ALL say that their horse business dropped off from 75% to 90% after the slaughter plants closed and horses lost their value. They will all tell you that cheaper horses get little or no Vet care now because horses are so cheap people will just let them die and replace them. 

Look up slaughter numbers and prices during the last recession. In the late 80s, 350,000 horses were sent to slaughter per year. Another result of the 'supply and demand' cycle that is happening now. The only thing different then is that a fat slaughter horse was worth $900.00 to $1000.00 so people kept them fat and well-cared for and did not starve any of them to death.

So, if you want to write a paper, try actually researching it and get both sides of the story. Your paper now is getting both sides of the story from one side -- the animal rights activists biased and untruthful side.


----------



## crimson88

Cherie said:


> It is not an essay but a biased rant written by someone with an agenda. Much of it is inaccurate and is taken directly from the biased agenda of the animal rights nuts. Their real agenda is to stop ALL livestock, horse and pet ownership.
> 
> Fraudulent organizations like PETA, HSUS and ALF, that also frequently contain animal terrorists, have worked to spread the lies and half-truths that you are repeating.
> 
> I suggest that if you really want to write a credible paper that YOU actually research and look to other sources than the animal rights nuts with an agenda. Check the AVMA and the AAEP websites. They are licensed Veterinarians with no agenda other than to help animals and relieve suffering.
> 
> I also suggest that you personally contact a dozen 'country Vets'. These are the Veterinarians that practice out of small clinics in rural areas where they doctor large and small animals. They are NOT the big equine centers that doctor high-dollar show and race horses.
> 
> I HAVE visited with many of them. They ALL say that their horse business dropped off from 75% to 90% after the slaughter plants closed and horses lost their value. They will all tell you that cheaper horses get little or no Vet care now because horses are so cheap people will just let them die and replace them.
> 
> Look up slaughter numbers and prices during the last recession. In the late 80s, 350,000 horses were sent to slaughter per year. Another result of the 'supply and demand' cycle that is happening now. The only thing different then is that a fat slaughter horse was worth $900.00 to $1000.00 so people kept them fat and well-cared for and did not starve any of them to death.
> 
> So, if you want to write a paper, try actually researching it and get both sides of the story. Your paper now is getting both sides of the story from one side -- the animal rights activists biased and untruthful side.


Yes, It is biased. We were required to slant it towards our opinion, and in our conclusion our thesis statement needed to clearly state our opinion (Perhaps I should have clarified that).

I never quoted or used information from PETA, HSUS, or ALF (I haven't even heard of ALF).


----------



## Cherie

So why are you more interested in bias than truth?

Why would you not want to even know what statements in your paper are completely false and untrue? This alone tells me that you are not interested in the truth but just want to write a biased rant. There is a difference between bias and spreading untruthful rants put out by other biased people.

Everything you say as fact comes straight off of PETA and HSUS talking points and from their propaganda. So, where do you think it came from? What research did you do to come up with these conclusions? If you authoritatively quote 'facts', you should know where those 'facts' came from.

By the way, ALF ( stands for Animal Liberation Front). It is a terrorist animal rights group that has used fire (arson) to destroy laboratories that housed animals used for testing things like human drugs for safety. [They killed all of the animals, by the way.]

They are also suspected of torching the Cavel Horse Processing Plant in Illinois. It was definitely destroyed by arson.


----------



## Airspace1

Crimson88''
I see you done your work well.. Its not how you wrote your letter its how you have the FACTS''
Pro slaughter groups always call names like TreeHugger, Goodoers, Terrorist, Bleeding Hearts etc. They will do all they can to derail what really needs to be done. ABOLISH HORSE SLAUGHTER and Create ways to educate the uneducated or Jail Criminals that continue to break laws without reward payments for slaughter..

For example Leroy Baker of OHIO an Auctioneer that owns and operates SugarCreek owes over $162,000 in unpaid fines and continues to operate..

Why are criminals allowed to be protected well its because some consider horses livestock this removes any protection as a dog or cat have.. 

OH Cheri recommends credit to the AVMA and the AAEP well they do support the ban on double deckers which many horses have died on HWY in route to slaughter.

Im sure if Cheri's love ones were in a vehicle that collided with a legal operating driver in a double decker she would sing a different story.. 

FACT is I can bet she is in the Rodeo ties or breeding Association ties a puppet for an irresponsible organization that has NO HISTORY of promoting or donating to any horse rescue in the US. 

According to a release (FOIA) from USDA which clearly shows the condition horses arrived at the plants. Very few were thin Most were young and healthy. Good horses so they lied to the public.

Oh did I mention they operated illegal in Texas for years and we tax payers paid these foreigners inspectors which total a cost of $5 Million a year. 

Or did any one mention that even thou the same amount of horses go to slaughter now they still cry we need slaughter in the US. NOT fact is these irresponsible people know they can make more money thats the FACTS..

They do NOT care for the horses if they did you would see the AQHA, APHA, AVMA, AAEP,Race Industry,Breeders set a fee in place to assist horse rescues. 

Want to see a growing economy STOP rewarding criminals and create fees for rescues coming from a live horse such as Horse trailer sells,Tack,Park Permits,Auction sells, Breeding, Racing,Showing etc. You name it but these people WONT.. Its show me the money only..

Pure Greed and irresponsible people..


----------



## crimson88

Cherie said:


> So why are you more interested in bias than truth?
> 
> Why would you not want to even know what statements in your paper are completely false and untrue?
> 
> Everything you say as fact comes straight off of PETA and HSUS talking points and their propaganda. So, where do you think it came from?


I assume that you are pro-slaughter. So say my essay was in favor of slaughter, and someone who is agaisnt it said my information was biased. It would still be biased because that would still be my opinion. It doesn't matter what side of the issue I take (or anyone else takes) because it's an opinion and people's opinions are biased. 


Here are the citations for my essay:
Unwanted Horse Coalition
_www.alpha*horse*.com/*horse*-*slaughter*.html _
Horse Slaughterhouses May Reopen After Five Year Ban - ABC News
Horse slaughter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Americans Don't Eat Horses


----------



## kevinshorses

There are several factual errors in your paper. I didn't read the whole thing because it's not very well written and I couldn't bring myself to wade through it. Wild horses are freeze branded and are not allowed to be sold to slaughter. It's very well enforced. 

Double decker trucks are NOT illegal for transporting horses and they have solid floors that don't allow feces and urine to fall down on the lower deck. A grown man can almost stand up straight in the lowest compartment. Horses wouldn't be able to lift thier head way up but they're not terribly uncomfortable.

The Canadian government studied the drug residue found in horses, cattle and pigs and the horses were 98% drug residue free, the highest of the three. There could very easily be withdrawl protocalls put in place by the Canadian or U.S. governments. The processors and feedlots are already using withdrawl protocalls.

Good luck with your paper. Hopefully your teacher won't know anything more about the issue than you do. You have every right to your opinion but you shouldn't lie to try to make your point or believe the lies of others. Think for yourself. You listed a series of sites that are absolutely biased, did you not think to check thier facts?


----------



## Ladytrails

Airspace1 said:


> Crimson88''
> 
> .....FACT is I can bet she is in the Rodeo ties or breeding Association ties a puppet for an irresponsible organization that has NO HISTORY of promoting or donating to any horse rescue in the US.
> 
> .....They do NOT care for the horses if they did you would see the AQHA, APHA, AVMA, AAEP,Race Industry,Breeders set a fee in place to assist horse rescues...


The AQHA has a program called "Full Circle" where AQHA horse owners and breeders can follow a horse they've sold and offer it a retirement home after its career is finished. This is even better than funding rescues, as it frees up the rescues for those whose original breeders/owners are not responsible. 

To my knowledge, the US Humane Society does not provide financial support for horse rescues. They do follow-up on allegations of cruelty and work with animal control, but they do not provide money to actually take care of the animals. That's up to cities, not-for-profits, and animal lovers to fund, while the Humane Society uses funds for lobbying for laws to promote their agenda.


----------



## LovesMyDunnBoy

Crimson88: I agree with a lot of what you have said. It's an opinion, and you have every right to voice it. I'm aware most of the members on this forum are pro-slaughter, but I know they don't agree with abuse. In my opinion, slaughter wouldn't be so bad if it was more humane. And I'm not one of those people who are "oh save da pwetty ponehs because I gots one" I believe that slaughter for all animals should be much more humane. What she said about to chemicals wormer and such things makes sense. It's not slaughter that I'm against, it's abuse. 

Everyone is entitled their own opinion, but at the same time you shouldn't be jumping down her throat because you disagree. The same would have happened if she had been proslaughter, someone against it would have acted the same as well.

The immaturity on this forum when it comes to different views just makes me shake my head sometimes.

Very good essay Crimson88. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## crimson88

kevinshorses said:


> There are several factual errors in your paper. I didn't read the whole thing because it's not very well written and I couldn't bring myself to wade through it. Wild horses are freeze branded and are not allowed to be sold to slaughter. It's very well enforced.
> 
> Double decker trucks are NOT illegal for transporting horses and they have solid floors that don't allow feces and urine to fall down on the lower deck. A grown man can almost stand up straight in the lowest compartment. Horses wouldn't be able to lift thier head way up but they're not terribly uncomfortable.
> 
> The Canadian government studied the drug residue found in horses, cattle and pigs and the horses were 98% drug residue free, the highest of the three. There could very easily be withdrawl protocalls put in place by the Canadian or U.S. governments. The processors and feedlots are already using withdrawl protocalls.
> 
> Good luck with your paper. Hopefully your teacher won't know anything more about the issue than you do. You have every right to your opinion but you shouldn't lie to try to make your point or believe the lies of others. Think for yourself. You listed a series of sites that are absolutely biased, did you not think to check thier facts?


So am I supposed to believe you instead of websites such as ABC News, and Wikipedia?


----------



## kevinshorses

Nope. You're supposed to do your own research. That means looking at both sides of an issue. I think I'm probably a less biased source than ABC news and I'm **** sure a better source than wikipedia. If I were your teacher I'd fail you just for listing wikipedia as a source.


----------



## crimson88

kevinshorses said:


> Nope. You're supposed to do your own research. That means looking at both sides of an issue. I think I'm probably a less biased source than ABC news and I'm **** sure a better source than wikipedia. If I were your teacher I'd fail you just for listing wikipedia as a source.


Well sir, you did not look at my citations then because one of the websites I listed, states why both "anti-" and "pro-" groups are both "wrong". 

In case you were wondering, I do have the highest GPA in my class, and my instructor suggested I take WR122 next term. That is five courses above my current course. I am also on honor-role.


----------



## kevinshorses

In case you were wondering I have very little faith in teh education system. I think they do an adequate job teaching math and science but they fail miserably at teaching critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Your paper and gpa only support that.


----------



## LovesMyDunnBoy

It's a persuasive speech, obviously someone had to disagree otherwise there wouldn't be anyone to convince  opinions....they just aren't possible on this site without catching a little hell.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## crimson88

kevinshorses said:


> In case you were wondering I have very little faith in teh education system. I think they do an adequate job teaching math and science but they fail miserably at teaching critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Your paper and gpa only support that.


Agian, that's your opinion


----------



## Ladytrails

Crimson, 
Your essay was one of the better ones I've seen written by a youth, even though I agree with some of the others that it's definitely very one-sided and has some rogue apostrophes (sorry, but I'm a teacher's kid...) 

From the perspective of some of us, I'd like to suggest that there are a few questions unanswered by your solution to have the breeders stop breeding. 

For example, has this solution already been suggested? Tried? Was it successful? Why or why not? If not, what next? Can it be determined whether the suggested solution to the problem is likely to succeed if certain conditions exist? If so, what conditions are needed? 

Also, you could explore the question of "what if slaughter goes away altogether?" There are lots of issues there, and I don't recall any solutions presented in the essay for those horses that you agreed shouldn't be left starving and unclaimed or unwanted in the US, Mexico and Canada. 

And the next and last question I'll suggest to prompt the critical thinking process is to ask what would happen if slaughter was banned not just for horses, but next for other meat animals. I'm the first one to agree that humane treatment must be required for animal husbandry, but the US Humane Society has an agenda that is not consistent with providing affordable, nutritious protein, milk and eggs for people to eat. They and other groups would like to see all animal farming and slaughter stop. 

Good luck - you can still flesh out these opposing thoughts and opinions, and then conclude with your view, just like your teacher allows. But by fleshing it out, you'll educate others in a more balanced way, might actually prompt a discussion that yields solutions in your circle of influence, and you'll gain respect for your research.


----------



## crimson88

Ladytrails said:


> Crimson,
> Your essay was one of the better ones I've seen written by a youth, even though I agree with some of the others that it's definitely very one-sided and has some rogue apostrophes (sorry, but I'm a teacher's kid...)
> 
> From the perspective of some of us, I'd like to suggest that there are a few questions unanswered by your solution to have the breeders stop breeding.
> 
> For example, has this solution already been suggested? Tried? Was it successful? Why or why not? If not, what next? Can it be determined whether the suggested solution to the problem is likely to succeed if certain conditions exist? If so, what conditions are needed?
> 
> Also, you could explore the question of "what if slaughter goes away altogether?" There are lots of issues there, and I don't recall any solutions presented in the essay for those horses that you agreed shouldn't be left starving and unclaimed or unwanted in the US, Mexico and Canada.
> 
> And the next and last question I'll suggest to prompt the critical thinking process is to ask what would happen if slaughter was banned not just for horses, but next for other meat animals. I'm the first one to agree that humane treatment must be required for animal husbandry, but the US Humane Society has an agenda that is not consistent with providing affordable, nutritious protein, milk and eggs for people to eat. They and other groups would like to see all animal farming and slaughter stop.
> 
> Good luck - you can still flesh out these opposing thoughts and opinions, and then conclude with your view, just like your teacher allows. But by fleshing it out, you'll educate others in a more balanced way, might actually prompt a discussion that yields solutions in your circle of influence, and you'll gain respect for your research.


Thank-you, You gave me somethings here to work with, for sure! I may revise it tonight. It's due tommorrow, but I am meeting with a tutor tommorrow and he/she can help me "dive deeper".


----------



## Cherie

Ask the sources that I listed -- like practicing Veterinarians. They see neglect and abuse and starving horses nearly every day. Ask THEM if there is more since American slaughter plants closed. They are the ones that get called in to kill the starved ones that can't survive when the Sheriff has them turned in to him. The neglect and abuse started more than a year before the economy melted down. It corresponded exactly with the loss of value in the horse market where the 'killer price' is the 'set in' price that every horse is worth.

Then, answer me one thing that I have asked in every one of these debates and have not gotten ONE answer!

If there were no slaughter plants (now in Mexico and Canada) where do you think all of the unwanted horses will go?

When there was full employment, a very high horse market for every kind of horse, a $900.00 'fat horse' killer market, there were still 100,000 unwanted horses a year. Where do you think they will go? The rescues are all underfunded and over-full. The number of unwanted horses would soon reach over 1,000,000 with horses living out for 25 - 30 years. If the distant plants closed tomorrow, where would all of these horses go? You cannot wave a magic want and make them disappear.


----------



## loveduffy

you know this was going to bring out the hate so hang on it will settle down soon- nice assay I believe the breeders could stop and the horse value would go up like cars and gas less the price is more


----------



## crimson88

Cherie said:


> Ask the sources that I listed -- like practicing Veterinarians. They see neglect and abuse and starving horses nearly every day. Ask THEM if there is more since American slaughter plants closed. They are the ones that get called in to kill the starved ones that can't survive when the Sheriff has them turned in to him. The neglect and abuse started more than a year before the economy melted down. It corresponded exactly with the loss of value in the horse market where the 'killer price' is the 'set in' price that every horse is worth.
> 
> Then, answer me one thing that I have asked in every one of these debates and have not gotten ONE answer!
> 
> If there were no slaughter plants (now in Mexico and Canada) where do you think all of the unwanted horses will go?
> 
> When there was full employment, a very high horse market for every kind of horse, a $900.00 'fat horse' killer market, there were still 100,000 unwanted horses a year. Where do you think they will go? The rescues are all underfunded and over-full. The number of unwanted horses would soon reach over 1,000,000 with horses living out for 25 - 30 years. If the distant plants closed tomorrow, where would all of these horses go? You cannot wave a magic want and make them disappear.


Since the amount of American horses that were slaughtered back when the U.S. had slaughter, compared to now, the same amount of American horses are still being slaughtered in Mexico & Canada. So, I do not believe that slaughtering has a huge impact on the horse population. 

Many more horses are being bred than are being slaughtered. I think the only solution is to stop breeding. Not all together, because without some breeders we would not have any horses. This also wouldn't help the unwanted horses of today, but would lessen the amount in the future. However, there is too much breeding going on, and there is no way to regulate or stop people from breeding horses.


----------



## tinyliny

I am not sure if your reason for sharing the essay was to see if you had enough of an argument to persuade others to agree, or was it to have readers give their evaluation of the essay as a piece of expository writing, in which case the grammar, punctuaion and logical outline and progression of your argument is more important than the "truth" of it in a objective sense.

If you want the latter, I can say that you might want to reread the essay from the point of view of someone who has no knowledge of this subject matter. Thus, set up the situation a bit more clearly, (why people breed knowing that many will end up discarded. Because, people would not do this if it wasnt' profitable in some way.)
Then, you might describe the crisis , so to speak, with numbers of horse abandoned, and in shelters, so that the severity of the problem is explained.

Then, list the solutions considered and why you feel that slaughter is NOT the best solution. Make your paragraphs shorter and more "punchy". There are a few grammatical errors that I can find if I wade through the large blocks of text, and I can do that if you like. 

Expository writing is hard, and usually requires multiple drafts, wherein you rearrange and reduce waste to fine tune the final product. 

I wish the best of luck and commend your courage for taking and standing for your beliefs.


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians

I'm not going to comment on the subject, but the technical aspect of the writing needs a lot of improvement. You did say you are a college student, right? 

The content appears to be quotes taken right off the various sites without any real research done by the writer, just regurgitating the paragraphs found on the web. Not good research, nor good critical thinking skills. 

I don't mind that you're expressing your own opinion on the subject, but if you want to persuade ME give me something more than I can find by going to the extremist web sites on my own. Boil it down, give some thought and solutions to the various problems and objections. If you are trying to persuade me to your point of view you're not going to get far with that paper. Keep on working on it, it will take shape.


----------



## Shropshirerosie

tinyliny;1395690
If you want the latter said:


> this is me. Whilst we have debates in the UK about our views on the meat market, it is a materially different debate to that which you have in the US. I therefore read this with interest, and a very open and uninformed mind.
> 
> Firstly the easily made and easily correctable mistakes - Spelling mistakes, poor grammar, and the use of abbreviations without explanations. I suggest you re-read for these.
> 
> The opening was fairly clear, and I followed your flow of information. Then as I read down I started to feel that I was reading a series of 'copy and pasted' arguments and facts from other information sources; the style and grammar changes making it a less 'readable' essay.
> 
> Finally, even as an uneducated outsider I did start to feel a trifle suspicious of the bold claims you make about the poor quality of the transport vehicles and the inadaquacies of the methods of destruction. I wanted you to explain to me how you know these facts but you expected me to accept them all without question.
> 
> One other thing - but this may be a US UK language thing: not until the point that you describe methods of slaughter was I completely sure what the debate was about. To me "slaughter" means killing by any method for any purpose, but I think your definition of slaughter for this essay is killing for use in the meat industry. Is that a language thing, or will non-horse owners also suffer from this confusion of meaning?


----------



## wyominggrandma

HSUS is totally tied in with PETA... They do not have ONE shelter in the US, nor do they support any type of humane societies or rescues. ALL their money they get from donations work against owning animals and with PETA.. Also their salaries.
Their agenda is just whats PETA's is, nobody anywhere owning animals of any kind for any reason.


----------



## sarahver

Crimson, although I don't agree with your contention, you are free to argue to me that the sky is purple if you wish. If your argument is good enough you will force me to seriously address the issue of the sky being purple and to question my long held beliefs of it being blue. This essay isn't quite there yet.

Tips for writing a persuasive essay, that is, one that will bring those of opposite viewpoints to your side of the fence:

1.) Make it enjoyable to read with correct puncuation and succinct, powerful sentences. Rule of thumb: Extraneous words that can be removed from sentences without changing the meaning SHOULD be removed. Unrelated example: 'I got off of the table' should be changed to 'I got off the table'.

2.) When you make statements that are purported to be fact, you MUST support with appropriate referencing. Just one example (of many candidates in your essay) would be to provide evidence of the serious and lethal effects that Bute has in humans. Not saying you aren't right about that point, just highlighting that a big statement like that needs to be backed up with evidence.

3.) One of the most important parts of persuasive writing is providing alternative solutions. Be careful not to offer a solution that is unclear, or ineffective. You have mentioned that reducing breeding would reduce the horse population. Well, it wouldn't. Reducing breeding today might reduce the _future_ population but it will do nothing for the current situation. You need another alternative solution for your anti-slaughter contention to hold any water.

4.) Again with the solution - having the idea is a good start. Developing it is the key. How would you implement the solution? What would the cost be? How long would it take to implement? How effective would it be in your estimation?

May I ask what level of education this piece is for? If it is high school then it is a good start but will need more fine tuning. If it is for University you have a lot of work to do. Good luck!


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

Keep in mind that kevinshorses and Cherie are not trying to turn this into a "pro/anti slaughter" debate. They're pointing out the factual inconsistencies with your paper. It's fine to have an opinion, but I would be more clear about the fact that it is JUST your opinion as opposed to trying to make what you've written sound like fact when most of it isn't. You can't quote singular research and then tout it as fact, there's a reason why there are multiple studies from both sides of the fence.

It's much like human nutrition. A lot of people don't realize that 90% of the information on nutrition is ONLY theory. We know very little in the terms of facts when it comes to things like fat, cholesterol and grains and yet people tout biased research studies as fact. It's a dangerous thing when you can convince most of a population of something when none of it is based on factual evidence.


----------



## equiniphile

If you didn't do the research on Bute etc. yourself through scientific studies, you need to have in-text citations to back it up with. I don't know what format your writing is supposed to be in (MLA, APA, etc.), but follow the guidelines for that particular format.

It definitely needs some fine-tuning. Try to merge a few sentences, replace a few words, and check all of your grammar. A lot of the sentences seem stilted and rough.

The biggest thing that got me, however, was that I had no idea where your article was going to go until well into reading. From the start, you need to have an argument set up to tell readers exactly what you're going to be writing about. At first, I thought it was a pro-essay paper.

Good luck!


----------



## Airspace1

I wouldnt say so much their agenda's..Its the agenda's of the people who witness crimes etc. 

Ive been a supporter of HSUS and local shelters. Any time I do donate I do my research.. Fact HSUS do donates and its only 2% a very small amount but they do. Matter fact I worked with a rescue in Arkansas that was dogged by a pro slaughter organization that has capitalized off many organizations that help animals in order to profit and lie to the public. One such is HumaneWatch an Organization that exposed the 2% donation from HSUS. Any how during my visit with this rescue I informed them of this Organization targeting him.. He showed me a check that came from HSUS for comp of the cost he had endured because of the rescues efforts. That check was in the amount of $5,000. HSUS is our MOST powerful lobbying machine in congress similar to the NRA protecting your rights to own a gun.. So if you dog HSUS then also dog the NRA.


----------



## Horse Poor

crimson88 said:


> In case you were wondering, I do have the highest GPA in my class, and my instructor suggested I take WR122 next term. That is five courses above my current course. I am also on honor-role.


Shouldn't that be "honor roll"?


----------



## WesternBella

No, it's honor role..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Horse Poor

WesternBella said:


> Great essay, I agree with a lot of it but you could definitely be using some commas instead of periods in some places. Sorry if you didn't want any kind of critique, I'm just an English nerd
> _Posted via Mobile Device_





WesternBella said:


> No, it's honor role..
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



…and here is yet another shining example of the quality of education received by students today!


----------



## loveduffy

well this has turned in to a english lesson


----------



## Speed Racer

loveduffy said:


> well this has turned in to a english lesson


_An_ English lesson. :wink:


----------



## loveduffy

thank you I need all the help I can get


----------



## Speed Racer

Any time, duffy. 

Oh, and it's honor ROLL. 'Roll' in this case means list. 'Role' is a part played by an actor.


----------



## sarahver

:shock:


----------



## crimson88

I’d like to thank everyone for their input. I had the tutor look at it yesterday and she helped me with my comma problems. She apparently has owned horses in the past and liked my message I am trying to send. She thought I should take out the first beginning paragraphs (Not the introduction but the following paragraphs after that) and get right to the point of slaughter, but I just left them in. I turned it in and I should get it back next week or so. 
Just so you all know, I am not a student at a university. I am an 18 year old who just graduated high school and am now going to a community college for my pre-reqs. I do, at some point, hope to be able to go to a university. I know I am not the greatest writer or student, but I was placed into the wrong course for my level. I currently am in WR90 (which mainly covers dangling modifiers, parallel structure, joining ideas, organizations, coherence, conventions, and critical thinking) and my instructor told me I need to take WR122 (which is an advanced writing/English course) . I am a part time student and I currently take three courses, and I currently have two A’s and a B. 
Again thank-you for all of your input, everything is food for thought.


----------



## sarahver

crimson88 said:


> I’d like to thank everyone for their input. I had the tutor look at it yesterday and she helped me with my comma problems. She apparently has owned horses in the past and liked my message I am trying to send. She thought I should take out the first beginning paragraphs (Not the introduction but the following paragraphs after that) and get right to the point of slaughter, but I just left them in. I turned it in and I should get it back next week or so.
> Just so you all know, I am not a student at a university. I am an 18 year old who just graduated high school and am now going to a community college for my pre-reqs. I do, at some point, hope to be able to go to a university. I know I am not the greatest writer or student, but I was placed into the wrong course for my level. I currently am in WR90 (which mainly covers dangling modifiers, parallel structure, joining ideas, organizations, coherence, conventions, and critical thinking) and my instructor told me I need to take WR122 (which is an advanced writing/English course) . I am a part time student and I currently take three courses, and I currently have two A’s and a B.
> Again thank-you for all of your input, everything is food for thought.


Well all the best to you and I wish you well in your quest to get into university! I also wanted to add that we all go through a steep learning curve in the transition between high school and university. I know I did 

Also, we all make mistakes and have areas that we want to improve on, the important thing is that we're aware of what needs work. For example, I am guilty of adding in errant appostrophes and can be wild with my capitalization. It takes me 3-4 drafts before I consider any of my work worth submitting (whether it is for academic or career purposes) and I always try to get at least one or two outsiders to draft my work and get feedback on grammar, flow and overall structure.

It's **** hard work but the more you do it, the better you become! Trust me I have had some hard critiques in the past but they are the ones that you learn the most from. I also remember the people who critique the _harshest_ and will seek their opinion first as I know that they don't hold back and their comments will be the most beneficial.

I teach a couple of classes at university level these days and see the full spectrum in terms of quality responses and critical thinking. The most rewarding students to teach are not necessarily those at the top of the class; it is the students that show the most improvement that deserve the biggest commendation because you can be sure that they slaved their butts off trying to improve.

Hang in there!


----------



## crimson88

Thank-you


----------



## JumpingPaints

Cherie said:


> It is not an essay but a biased rant written by someone with an agenda. Much of it is inaccurate and is taken directly from the biased agenda of the animal rights nuts. Their real agenda is to stop ALL livestock, horse and pet ownership.
> 
> Fraudulent organizations like PETA, HSUS and ALF, that also frequently contain animal terrorists, have worked to spread the lies and half-truths that you are repeating.
> 
> I suggest that if you really want to write a credible paper that YOU actually research and look to other sources than the animal rights nuts with an agenda. Check the AVMA and the AAEP websites. They are licensed Veterinarians with no agenda other than to help animals and relieve suffering.
> 
> I also suggest that you personally contact a dozen 'country Vets'. These are the Veterinarians that practice out of small clinics in rural areas where they doctor large and small animals. They are NOT the big equine centers that doctor high-dollar show and race horses.
> 
> I HAVE visited with many of them. They ALL say that their horse business dropped off from 75% to 90% after the slaughter plants closed and horses lost their value. They will all tell you that cheaper horses get little or no Vet care now because horses are so cheap people will just let them die and replace them.
> 
> Look up slaughter numbers and prices during the last recession. In the late 80s, 350,000 horses were sent to slaughter per year. Another result of the 'supply and demand' cycle that is happening now. The only thing different then is that a fat slaughter horse was worth $900.00 to $1000.00 so people kept them fat and well-cared for and did not starve any of them to death.
> 
> So, if you want to write a paper, try actually researching it and get both sides of the story. Your paper now is getting both sides of the story from one side -- the animal rights activists biased and untruthful side.


Cherie, you talk about the original poster's piece containing information from the 'untruthful' side. Yet your post is rife with outright fabrications and paranoia.

To lump PETA, HSUS and ALF together is ludicrous. ALF does take animal rights to extreme measures. And PETA I'm no fan of, but HSUS is a mainstream organization, and your accusation that their 'real agenda is to stop ALL livestock, horse and pet ownership,' and that they 'frequently contain animal terrorists, have worked to spread the lies and half-truths,' is outright slander. This paranoia was created because of HSUS's work against puppy mills, factory farms, and yes, horse slaughter. I would direct people to for fact-based information that refutes these accusations: Myth: HSUS Wants to Outlaw Pets « HumaneWatch Info

In addition is your unproven assumption that moving horse slaughter plants (while continuing to sell the same # of American horses to slaughter) has been the cause of the drop in horse meat prices. I find it shocking that horse people are in denial of the effects of the largest economic downturn since the great depression. All luxury products - even homes - have lost up to 80% of their value, and you really think horses would be somehow immune?? What makes the horse situation even worse is that breeders continue breeding for the low (meat quality) end of the market. At least builders and producers of luxury products were smart enough to stop or severely curtail production.

The reality is the horse industry has no one to blame for the crash of the low end of the horse market but themselves. Horse prices are determined by an interplay of supply and demand... economics 101. Demand from slaughter has NOT changed one iota. It's demand from owners (the legitimate horse market) that has vanished and caused the problem, which is exacerbated by reckless stock horse breeding. And selling horses to slaughter - which has NEVER ceased to be an option for horse owners - only provides an incentive for further lottery-style breeding. Take away the cull option and the market will force people to breed responsibly, which will provide a LONG TERM solution to the equine neglect problem, that slaughter has significantly enabled.


----------



## Tabatha55

Horses are not raised for food as a general rule and here are some articles that show why they should not end up as food!
Here is a link from the FDA regarding bute and its use in horses for meat. First a quote “We want to ensure that the public is never exposed to residues of this toxic drug.’
Phenylbutazone is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia and deaths. Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type have also been reported. In addition, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as determined by the National Toxicology Program."
Here is the link FDA Order Prohibits Extra-label Use of Phenylbutazone
Next Quote-
‎"We performed a retrospective epidemiologic investigation of an unusual case of toxoplasmosis that occurred in March 1991. Patient 3, a 21-year-old pregnant woman living in the Nice area, was treated with spiramycine because routine serologic testing had shown T. gondii parasite infection seroconversion at 22 weeks’ gestation. Amniocentesis showed T. gondii tachyzoites in amniotic fluid by microscopic examination. At 26 weeks’ gestation, the woman underwent termination of pregnancy for ultrasonography-detected fetal severe abnormalities. Fetal necropsy showed numerous cerebral, cardiac, and hepatic abscesses with T. gondii tachyzoites. A few days after pregnancy termination, the woman experienced cervical lymphadenopathy, which lasted 3 years. She reported having eaten raw horse meat regularly during her pregnancy."
Toxoplasmosis and Horse Meat, France - Vol. 17 No. 7 - July 2011 - Emerging Infectious Disease journ 
wwwnc.cdc.gov
Still think horse meat is safe- would you want your pregnant wife or daughter to eat it regularly during their pregnancy?


----------



## kevinshorses

Tabatha55 said:


> Horses are not raised for food as a general rule and here are some articles that show why they should not end up as food!
> Here is a link from the FDA regarding bute and its use in horses for meat. First a quote “We want to ensure that the public is never exposed to residues of this toxic drug.’
> Phenylbutazone is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia and deaths. Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type have also been reported. In addition, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as determined by the National Toxicology Program."
> Here is the link FDA Order Prohibits Extra-label Use of Phenylbutazone
> Next Quote-
> ‎"We performed a retrospective epidemiologic investigation of an unusual case of toxoplasmosis that occurred in March 1991. Patient 3, a 21-year-old pregnant woman living in the Nice area, was treated with spiramycine because routine serologic testing had shown T. gondii parasite infection seroconversion at 22 weeks’ gestation. Amniocentesis showed T. gondii tachyzoites in amniotic fluid by microscopic examination. At 26 weeks’ gestation, the woman underwent termination of pregnancy for ultrasonography-detected fetal severe abnormalities. Fetal necropsy showed numerous cerebral, cardiac, and hepatic abscesses with T. gondii tachyzoites. A few days after pregnancy termination, the woman experienced cervical lymphadenopathy, which lasted 3 years. She reported having eaten raw horse meat regularly during her pregnancy."
> Toxoplasmosis and Horse Meat, France - Vol. 17 No. 7 - July 2011 - Emerging Infectious Disease journ
> wwwnc.cdc.gov
> Still think horse meat is safe- would you want your pregnant wife or daughter to eat it regularly during their pregnancy?


First, eating raw meat at any point and particullarly during pregnancy is a very bad idea. Second, that is a report of anecdotal evidence. That is one women in one area of the world that had a parasitic infection from eating RAW meat. Horse meat is not any less safe than any other kind of raw meat.


----------



## JumpingPaints

*Horse slaughter increases unwanted horses*

Let’s address the whole ‘unwanted horses’ concept.

First, the ‘unwanted horses’ moniker was created – and heavily promoted – by slaughter proponents as justification for their grisly business. Its origins trace back to Tom Lenz, one of the most vocal and unapologetic horse slaughter pushers.

Second, the very existence of horse slaughter as an option actually creates ‘unwanted horses,’ as it provides incentive to breeders who utilize lottery style breeding, as a means to cut losses on their culls. So it increases unnecessary breeding. Slaughter is, in effect, a subsidy for irresponsible breeding (and bad business practices, but I digress).

Third, what is the definition of an ‘unwanted horse’? So far no definition has been provided, as it would provide an easy target to prove why slaughter doesn’t solve the problem. Here’s what I mean: horses that are starved or neglected – which most of us would probably classify as ‘unwanted’ – are not slaughter candidates. Horse slaughter is meat production, not a disposal service. Kill buyers seek young healthy animals in good weight. So slaughter doesn’t provide an outlet for neglected horses. It does provide an option for irresponsible breeders to dump their young, healthy culls.

And lastly, the very availability of horse slaughter is increasing equine neglect. We’ve already talked about how it increases unnecessary breeding. But it has also created legions of hoarders who are afraid of horses going to slaughter so they try to adopt and keep more than they can afford or handle. It is also increasing abandonment. When owners who abandon are caught, they express fear of sending their horses to auction where there are kill buyers. And then there are the kill buyers themselves, who are directly responsible for the abandonment of over 5,000 slaughter rejects in Texas, and neglect/starvation of feedlot horses in Presidio.

The bottom line is slaughter enables irresponsible breeding and ownership, and saying we need slaughter to control the unwanted horse population is as justifiable as saying we need dog fighting to control the pit bull population.


----------



## bsms

1 - What else do you call a horse that no one wants? "Unwanted horse" sounds pretty accurate, and there are quite a few available for free where I live.

2 - The horses most likely to head for slaughter today are the ones bred in the 1990s - those ranging from 12-22. That is a huge part of the problem, because those breeding in 1992 don't know what the market will support in 2012 any more than we can predict the horse market in 2032. I doubt anyone is currently breeding, and saying, "I'll just get my money back by selling these horses for slaughter".

3 - Slaughter where? What would make anyone think slaughter in Mexico is preferable to slaughter inside the USA?


----------



## maura

I am having trouble with the logic behind claiming horse slaughter encourages irresponsible lottery style breeding. 

What is the current price per pound for horse meat? What does 1000# 3 year old fetch on the hoof at a slaugher house? $300.? $500.? I can't think of how anyone could possibly make money breeding horses for slaughter, or breed indiscriminately and have it make sense by sending the culls to slaughter. 

My understanding of one of effects of closing US slaughterhouses was that it greatly increased transportation costs of getting the horses to market. So of that $300 - $500. on the hoof price (and that's my guess, I have no idea what the price actually is) more is eaten up in transportation and less is profit to the seller. I thought that was why horses are being bought for $25 - $100 to fill trailers heading for Mexico or Canada. 

How can this possibly subsidize breeders?



> Here’s what I mean: horses that are starved or neglected – which most of us would probably classify as ‘unwanted’ – are not slaughter candidates.


 I think this point reverses the cause and effect. Horses are starved and neglected in part because people can no longer afford to take care of them and they can't sell or rehome the horse. If you can no longer afford to keep your horse, but you can send it to the local livestock auction and get a 100 - 200 bucks for it, you chose that option before starvation and neglect. Second, if you remove the huge glut of grade horses from the bottom of the market, there might actually be a resale market for your average grade pleasure horse again. I would hate to be in a position to have to send a horse to a killer sale, but I would do it before I starved it, let it go without basic care, or abandoned it. I believe most responsible horse people would do the same.


----------



## tinyliny

Maybe it IS too easy for breeders to send the cast offs to slaughter. Maybe there should be some kind of excise tax put on each horse sold to slaughter, so that the seller must pay $100 , or $50, to some group which uses the money to support horse rescue. Makes the decision to sell for slaughter less attractive (not impossible, but less profitable) AND gives support for organizations that work to make horse slaughter irrelevant because all unwanted hroses will be "homed and wanted".


----------



## kevinshorses

When horses are valuable as a commodity and can be sold at any time for 65 cents per pound or so then horses will not be standing around eating up moldy hay and living in filth up to thier hocks. Those people will haul the horse in to the auction and sell it for the $650. If the horse is ugly or ill mannered then it will go to a feedlot and then on to slaughter. If the horse is well trained, well conformed or otherwise desirable then I or someone just like me will buy the horse, clean it up, train it if needed and then resell it at a nice profit to a good home. When someone sees a horse rotting away in a field somewhere they may ask to buy it knowing that if it doesn't work out they won't be stuck with the horse forever. Bringing slaughter back to the US isn't going to increase the amount of GOOD horses going to slaughter. In fact, it will decrease the number by setting a higher base price and allowing some profit back in horses. I don't dare buy any young horses to train and turn over because I'm afraid I won't be able to sell them until they have literally eaten all of the profit and then some. Before the prices crashed and well before the economy went in the hole I would buy two or three horses at a time from the meat auction and turn them over in a couple of months. The horses gained value and were given a good home and I made a few bucks. Who's buying those horses now? There were several other guys doing the same thing but they don't do it anymore either for the same reason.


----------



## Stir crazy

tinyliny said:


> Maybe it IS too easy for breeders to send the cast offs to slaughter. Maybe there should be some kind of excise tax put on each horse sold to slaughter, so that the seller must pay $100 , or $50, to some group which uses the money to support horse rescue. Makes the decision to sell for slaughter less attractive (not impossible, but less profitable) AND gives support for organizations that work to make horse slaughter irrelevant because all unwanted hroses will be "homed and wanted".


IF I would ever send a horse i bred to slaughter,there would be a very good reason why i believe it should not be placed with someone else. Why then should I have to pay for someone else to rescue unfit horses?


----------



## goneriding

Time for another glass of wine.....ah heck, I'm not re corking the bottle:wink:


----------



## tinyliny

the idea was to discourage the casual thinking "well, it doesnt' matter if i over breed cause I can get rid of it later". Make breeders a bit less likely to overbreed.

IT's jsut an idea, and since I do not breed, I confess it's just a theoretical idea.

The point is to make slaughter less likely to happen, but keep it safe , humane and legal. ANd work toward a world where the only horses slaughtered are the ones that really aren't rehomable. Dream? maybe . . .


----------



## Horse Poor

kevinshorses said:


> Before the prices crashed and well before the economy went in the hole I would buy two or three horses at a time from the meat auction and turn them over in a couple of months. The horses gained value and were given a good home and I made a few bucks. Who's buying those horses now? There were several other guys doing the same thing but they don't do it anymore either for the same reason.


We did too, only the kill buyer was the one who contacted us - we never attended any of the auctions. He, like most meat buyers, was a horseman. He would separate the ones he thought we might be interested in from the kill pen and give us a call. We'd check them out, handle them, see what they knew/didn't know, etc. and we never paid more for the horses we chose than the original bill of sale (reimbursing him his out of pocket).


----------



## JumpingPaints

wyominggrandma said:


> HSUS is totally tied in with PETA... They do not have ONE shelter in the US, nor do they support any type of humane societies or rescues. ALL their money they get from donations work against owning animals and with PETA.. Also their salaries.
> Their agenda is just whats PETA's is, nobody anywhere owning animals of any kind for any reason.


It is indeed ironic that people here are giving the OP crap about sourcing facts. This post is pure fabricated delusion, and yet I don't see those same people asking for sources here, hmmmm....

HSUS runs THE LARGEST EQUINE SANCTUARY IN THE UNITED STATES. Google Cleveland Armory Black Beauty Ranch. They also run the Doris Day Equine Rescue and the Duchess Equine Sanctuary, and two wildlife sanctuaries. 70% of the money they get goes to animal programs and their salaries are less than other similar animal welfare groups and their CEO makes a measly 25% of what the Farm Bureau CEO makes.

Who’s Really Over-Compensating? « HumaneWatch Info


----------



## Ridernthestorm

Lady Trails You are wrong when you say HSUS does not fund rescue. They run two large horse rescues.


----------



## JumpingPaints

maura said:


> I am having trouble with the logic behind claiming horse slaughter encourages irresponsible lottery style breeding.
> 
> What is the current price per pound for horse meat? What does 1000# 3 year old fetch on the hoof at a slaugher house? $300.? $500.? I can't think of how anyone could possibly make money breeding horses for slaughter, or breed indiscriminately and have it make sense by sending the culls to slaughter.
> 
> My understanding of one of effects of closing US slaughterhouses was that it greatly increased transportation costs of getting the horses to market. So of that $300 - $500. on the hoof price (and that's my guess, I have no idea what the price actually is) more is eaten up in transportation and less is profit to the seller. I thought that was why horses are being bought for $25 - $100 to fill trailers heading for Mexico or Canada.


Two points here - I didn't say you can make money breeding horses for slaughter. Breeders (who investigations have shown are the primary sources for slaughter horses), are using slaughter as a way to cut the losses on culls. Today many of them are using it to disperse herds, since they didn't curtail their breeding as the market was drying up. 

Secondly, transport time hasn't changed a whole lot. The slaughter market can only viably support a handful of plants in North America. Hence why we only had 3 plants in the US; two in TX and one in IL. Horses then had long trips then, like they have long trips now. And tens of thousands of US horses went to MEX and CAN even when the US plants were open.

What did change after the US plants closed was the worst economic downturn since the great depression. This led to crashed demand for horses and increased supply. Since price is a reflection of supply and demand (economics 101), prices crashed. Same way demand and prices for houses and all non-essential goods were similarly decimated. It's basic economics.


----------



## tinyliny

Horse Poor said:


> We did too, only the kill buyer was the one who contacted us - we never attended any of the auctions. He, like most meat buyers, was a horseman. He would separate the ones he thought we might be interested in from the kill pen and give us a call. We'd check them out, handle them, see what they knew/didn't know, etc. and we never paid more for the horses we chose than the original bill of sale (reimbursing him his out of pocket).


 
Good man.


----------



## maura

Jumping Paints, 

I'm having trouble following your your reasoning. First you said



> And selling horses to slaughter - which has NEVER ceased to be an option for horse owners - only provides an incentive for further lottery-style breeding. Take away the cull option and the market will force people to breed responsibly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today many of them are using it to disperse herds, since they didn't curtail their breeding as the market was drying up.
> 
> 
> 
> Which seems to say that breeders didn't respond to market pressure previously, but that they will now? Or they will if they plants in Canada and Mexico close as well?
> 
> I also found this statement confusing -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breeders (who investigations have shown are the primary sources for slaughter horses)
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean horses sent *directly* from the breeder's farm to slaughter? Otherwise that statement doesn't have a lot of meaning, because the only two sources of horses would be breeders and feral horses. Whose investigation?
> 
> I agree that overbreeding is a big part of the current problem, and that racing and certain types of show breeding are the worse offenders, becuase it is acceptable to put 10 foals on the ground to get one winner, and everyone focuses on the winner, not the the 9 that will have to find other homes and careers.
> 
> But I don't agree with your hypothesis about the role the American slaughter facilities, or slaughter in general, plays in the equation of the current glut of horses at the bottom or the market or the market itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JumpingPaints

maura said:


> Breeders (who investigations have shown are the primary sources for slaughter horses)
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean horses sent *directly* from the breeder's farm to slaughter? Otherwise that statement doesn't have a lot of meaning, because the only two sources of horses would be breeders and feral horses. Whose investigation?
> 
> I agree that overbreeding is a big part of the current problem, and that racing and certain types of show breeding are the worse offenders, becuase it is acceptable to put 10 foals on the ground to get one winner, and everyone focuses on the winner, not the the 9 that will have to find other homes and careers.
> 
> But I don't agree with your hypothesis about the role the American slaughter facilities, or slaughter in general, plays in the equation of the current glut of horses at the bottom or the market or the market itself.
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, I'm having an equally difficult time understanding your logic also. I'm applying proven (basic) economic principles here, not some 'hypothesis.' What IS a hypothesis that defies proven economic theory, is that moving the slaughter plants killed the horse market. The demand for US horses for slaughter remained constant. As a rule, you can't attribute something that remained constant as the agent of a changed result. And denial of a massive economic downturn and its devastating effects on the horse market doesn't help slaughter pushers' credibility either.
> 
> It took many breeders several years of poor demand, caused by the economic downturn, to scale back breeding sufficiently, and they're breeding too many horses for the market to sustain. Decreases in AQHA new foal regs (QH breeders being the worst offenders in breeding horses where there's no demand) are running about -12% each year from the previous year. Can you imagine if home builders only cut back 10% each year?? It doesn't help that AQHA encourages overbreeding with their policies and incentives, but many breeders continued thinking they could cut their losses using the meat option, not understanding that with the increased supply of and reduced demand for horses, that meat prices would fall also.
> 
> And this isn't a hypothesis. I heard many breeders admit to using slaughter for culling on equine forums.
> 
> Animals Angels went to auctions around the country and observed the horses being brought to auction and who the owners were. They saw lots of loads dumping off 10 to 15 young horses, almost always QHs and paints. And lots of TB trainers bringing their horses and often making deals with KBs right in the parking lot (and not running them thru the auction). Also, lots of nice trailers and rigs dumping off these horses.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## InStyle

So I did not read through the whole essay there a some spelling and grammar errors that need to be fixed. 

One thing that jumped out at me is : "Unlike the old, crippled, sick and used up dairy cow you eat in your hamburger, the majority of horses slaughtered are rejects from breeding farms."

I am pretty sure that a huge majority of beef is young, healthy animals. I know the ones we sent to slaughter, were about 40, 9 month old healthy animals, that went to a feedlot to be fattened up. 

Just my 2cents
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

"What IS a hypothesis that defies proven economic theory, is that moving the slaughter plants killed the horse market."

As a rule of thumb, the fewer slaughterhouses, the further a horse will need to be taken to get to one. Distance = money. If a horse suitable for food is worth $500 to the plant, but it costs $350 to get him there, then the buyer can only pay $150 without going broke.

"The demand for US horses for slaughter remained constant."

Since it has become more difficult to provide horses for slaughter, that suggests the demand might rise if it was easier (cheaper) to slaughter them.

*What boggles my mind is that anyone who cares about horses would think it is better for horses to be hauled to Mexico and killed than kept in the US and killed under US laws...*

"It took many breeders several years of poor demand, caused by the economic downturn, to scale back breeding sufficiently, and they're breeding too many horses for the market to sustain."

What year? Horses live a long time. As I understand it, in 2003, the horse market was booming. A horse bred then is now 9 years old. Now the market sucks. We're discussing horses, not light bulbs.

No one WANTS to breed too many horses. No breeder benefits from that. The costs to produce a foal is largely fixed. If you overbreed, then you get less money while still spending the same/horse - and no one wants that. But a horse bred in 2000 is still a prime horse for meat. It takes 5-15 years for the horse market to adjust the supply for the demand.

"It doesn't help that AQHA encourages overbreeding with their policies and incentives..."

Anyone who overbreeds for 'incentives' will be out of business before they can impact the market.


----------



## kevinshorses

I agree with BSMS. The buyer at the auction or farm has to cover costs and overhead and then ship it to a feedlot where it stays for at least a month and then they have to cover thier costs and ship it to the plant. thats a lot of cost for a horse that's worth so little. Another aspect that effects price is the processing capability of the plant. If a plant can only process 200 head per day then that's all they'll buy regardless of how low the price is. The demand for horse meat is better than the supply mostly due to the capacity of the plants. If there were more plants then the capacity would go up and the supply of horses would ease causing prices to go up on the live end and the demand to be met on the meat side.

Another thing that refutes the theory that breeders are using the slaughter market to rid themselves of culls is the fact that buyers won't even buy anything under 800 lbs for slaughter. That means a breeder has to feed a mare for a year and a foal for two more before he can sell it for $50. I know a lot of horse breeders and while some of them are not as smart as others they are ALL smarter than that.


----------



## maura

Transportation distance to a slaughter facility affects the cost to deliver the horse; most shippers charge by the mile. Further distance to haul the horse = less profit on eventual sale of the horse. Less profit per horse pushed a lot of small operators out of the business; and the only way to make this a viable financial transaction is with a tractor trailer load, further depressing the on the hoof price of a horse for slaughter. 

A breeder would be better off financially to shoot and bury their culls than to raise them to a marketable weight for slaughter. What is the most likely scenario is that they held on to stock for years hoping the market would improve, or failed to accurately predict the future market, as bsms has described, and then turned to slaughter as a last recourse when they had more stock than they could feed. Breeders are by definition optimists and wishful thinkers. They are also often hobbyists. It's a mistake to assume they respond to market pressure in the same way a widget manufacturer does.


----------



## cowgirl928

Would any of you guys mind if I used some of your comments about horse slaughter for my own informative paper? The paper is about a policy in the U.S. regarding horse slaughter and why healthy, registered horses are being sent to slaughter when they could be placed into homes that accept them. It also is going to include a question regarding the fact that while horse slaughter would create many jobs in the U.S., it is still going to **** some people off. The economic pluses from slaughter are astronomical, however, this would require much regulation by the government to keep people happy. Now to me, this is exactly fine. (the previous sentence is the one I am referring to.) I am still working on my thesis, so don't butcher my questions. I have a lot regarding the issue. Also if you would like to help me by pointing out very informative articles on horse slaughter statistics regarding the economic take on the subject, it would be greatly appreciated!

I too am in college, and I too am a freshmen. The difference is that my teacher forces us to do mass amounts of research. Crimson88, you may have had a high GPA, but quite frankly my dear you lack the fine tuned research skill of "wallowing in complexity", and the basic grammatical knowledge to write an effective paper that will allow people to look at the subject, not your grammar. 

Try free-writing the next time you write a paper; I will explain to you what it is. Free-writing is accomplished by turning off your computer screen, or just covering it up, going into your word processor, and simply typing. Type about your subject, do NOT look at the screen, and type for a straight 5 minutes AT LEAST. When you are done, go back and read what you have written. You will most likely find a basic thesis question in the free writing, and will often find questions that you know you can research. Also, utilize your college database. Search for peer-reviewed articles, as these contain information that has been proven by a board of professionals to be true. Next, when you look at your source articles, look at their sources! They found their information somewhere, and you need to look up their sources as well. Not only to make sure that the source is credible, but because you can find information in their sources that you will want to use in your source. I know it sounds like a lot of work, but that's college. 

Also, my GPA isn't the best, but that is because I go to a school where each class requires at LEAST 3 hours of out of class work for every in class hour. That is the average time you should be spending on out of class work. This is why college is a full time job-it takes a lot of time. So use your time, do your research, and read, read, read!


----------



## kevinshorses

You may use anything I've written.


----------



## sarahver

cowgirl928 said:


> Also if you would like to help me by pointing out very informative articles on horse slaughter statistics regarding the economic take on the subject, it would be greatly appreciated!


Here are some articles that may be useful, hopefully they aren't too old (anything pre 2008 gets a bit dated) however sometimes older papers are useful for illustrating background etc

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS21842_20060908.pdf

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS21842.pdf

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/FTAAProceedings/unwantedhorseproceedings2008.pdf#page=7

(121 pages, have fun with that one heh)

Also, excellent point regarding the ratio of time spent in class to time spent out of class; 1:3 is exactly right and sometimes more! So for every 10 hours spent in the class room you are looking at 30+ in addition before and after class, a full time job for sure!!

All the best to both of you


----------



## Ladytrails

Here are a couple - 
Issues - Unwanted horses and horse slaughter FAQ
www.aqha.com/~/media/92A9A98FE99945E78200069346B5BC32.ashx


----------



## Saddlebag

The one thing I could write was essays but in order to do so I had to do a lot of research. It was written initially as the words flowed, then edited for conciseness. All the facts need to be included so your essay would become a book. A good essay isn't about personal bias but about getting the reader to think about the issue. I don't appreciate your condemming Canadian plants. They aren't the main issue, there are the truckers, the loaders, the auctions, the owners. Why are the horses having to endure long inhumane trips - because all the do-gooders closed all the American plants. I'm not seeing that in your essay.


----------



## Horse4Ever

I started to slightly cry as I read this for I have seen the actual work of slaughter houses for horses.

I'm very tired, so I am not going to write anything fancy or elaborate, but I am just going to mention a story involving horse slaughter.

___
A knife in the fence, where once a healthy gelding resided, was what she saw. The town seemed like any other day, but there was an underwhelming sense of sorrow. 

Giddy, the first horse this girl had ever owned, was gone. The sound of his joyous neigh ceased to exist. The hoof prints in the sand no longer to be seen, but instead trailer tracks covered the road. This girl was not the only one to feel the sorrow that had become upon her, but many other horses had also been taken by this stranger in the night. 

The police came quickly but with a systematic essence that loomed whenever they talked. The policeman asked for only one thing, which was a picture in order to identify the horse, so the girl, in an attempt to help her furry friend, gave the only picture of Giddy that she owned. That picture never was returned, but what was returned was news. Giddy's trailer had been found on route to Mexico, along with the other horses, but Giddy had died along the journey from a blunt force hit to the head. This girl never rode horses again. 
___

This story is what happened to my mother in a town that I spent many years living in. Also, I have seen the regular slaughter house industries that process regular livestock, and it is absolutely horrific. Why throw in another animal into that mess? Also, we are in an economic downfall, and horses are going to continue to be unwanted until this ends. Most people are having trouble feeding their own families. 

By the way, I do not think that just sending animals to death in order to set things in balance is a way to fix the actual issue. Horses are going to become one messed up species in livestock if this becomes common practice. They make chickens grow so quickly that they can barely walk. Many slaughter houses wash their meat with ammonia. Also, Mexico is having such horrible issues right now that horse slaughtering is the least of their worries.

Anyways, before I write a 2,000 word essay, I'm going to sign off, but before I do, I am going to leave you guys with two of my favorite quotes.

"Nature is cruel, but we don't have to be" - Associated with Temple Grandin

"A dreamer is one who finds his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world." - Oscar Wilde.


----------



## Ladytrails

Horse4Ever, your mama's story is my nightmare. I live in fear of my beloved partners being stolen in the night and treated like that. It would break my heart. The only thing worse to think about, in my opinion, is of something happening to one of my two-legged loved ones. 

I've met Temple Grandin, heard her speak, and respect the sweeping good changes that she has helped bring to the livestock industry. She is a good teacher for those of us who own animals, both pets (companion animals) and livestock. I think her quote that you referenced is the essence of good animal husbandry - we need to know what makes our animals tick and what keeps them healthy and free of fear and stress for as much of their lives as is possible. This is my mantra. 

So, for me, it's not a question of whether or not there should be slaughter. It is whether or not we can improve humane handling with understanding and compassion and respect for the animals for the 99.999% of their lives before that final ugly moment of death.


----------



## Saddlebag

We will never end horse slaughter as it is necessary. But, there needs to be changes to how they are shipped, not in cattle liners but trailers designed for horses. Laws regarding the commercial transport of horses needs to be changed. There needs to be heavy fines for horses that are found down on the floor as they were too weak to be shipped. This is not the driver's fault, but the owner's. There needs to be laws in place whereby animals can be in the trailer only so many hours and then let out to move about with good feed and fresh water. Just because they are going to their death doesn't mean the process has to start at the auction yard. That's my take on it.


----------



## Horse4Ever

Ladytrails said:


> Horse4Ever, your mama's story is my nightmare. I live in fear of my beloved partners being stolen in the night and treated like that. It would break my heart. The only thing worse to think about, in my opinion, is of something happening to one of my two-legged loved ones.
> 
> I've met Temple Grandin, heard her speak, and respect the sweeping good changes that she has helped bring to the livestock industry. She is a good teacher for those of us who own animals, both pets (companion animals) and livestock. I think her quote that you referenced is the essence of good animal husbandry - we need to know what makes our animals tick and what keeps them healthy and free of fear and stress for as much of their lives as is possible. This is my mantra.
> 
> So, for me, it's not a question of whether or not there should be slaughter. It is whether or not we can improve humane handling with understanding and compassion and respect for the animals for the 99.999% of their lives before that final ugly moment of death.


I totally agree with you. I think that it the whole slaughter industry laws and enforcers has to be rewritten, and I think Temple Grandin should definitely be there helping to write it


----------



## Airspace1

*Slaughter is NOT the answer..*

Actually there is a pro slaughter group that is out to hurt and cripple HSUS and Peta because we all know they have the best lawyers and lobbyist. No they dont support their agenda's they support and lobby for our agenda's responsible people.. 

Fact I have a receipt from a horse rescue in Arkansas called Rescue Wranglers they received a check for $5,000 on a comp rescue. The check came from HSUS.

So dont always believe pro slaughter ignorance.. they have one goal to breed, and slaughter for profits.

Fact is AQHA really cared they would support our horse bills HR2966 , and S1176 and our transporation bill HR7 which will ban double deckers totally HR7 is also support by the AAEP and the AVMA.

AQHA will only give 1 % effort and NOT funds to fools its members..

Follow the money and you will see who support slaughter..

Slaughter is a mere incentive to continue slaughter for irresponsible and criminals folks.


----------



## BoldComic

I admit that I am pro-slaughter. But only when done the right way (I personally think the US needs to regulate and reopen plants with the help of Dr. Temple Grandin). However I did find your paper very persuasive. Seeing as that was your goal I say well done. Just make sure that anything you say has a fact to back it up. You don't want any cracks in you argument for people to catch you off guard.


----------



## WildJessie

I am just curious. Is the way horse slaughter industry any better than the American one?


----------



## maura

> Actually there is a pro slaughter group that is out to hurt and cripple HSUS and Peta because we all know they have the best lawyers and lobbyist. No they don't support their agenda's they support and lobby for our agenda's responsible people..


 Really? What's the name of the pro slaughter group? And does any organization really indentify itself as pro slaughter? Or just pragmatists? 



> I have a receipt from a horse rescue in Arkansas called Rescue Wranglers they received a check for $5,000 on a comp rescue. The check came from HSUS.


 Would you mind scanning that and posting it? It would be a much more effective rebuttal that way. 



> So don't always believe pro slaughter ignorance.. they have one goal to breed, and slaughter for profits.


 Would you care to provide some supporting evidence for these statements? I don't call myself pro slaughter, because I think slaughter is a gruesome but necessary evil. But I do support the reopening of regulated US slaughter facilities. I am NOT a breeder, and I've never made money from sending a horse to slaughter. If you look at my posts earlier in this thread, I believe I made a pretty effective argument that very few people are making money on slaughter right now; that the increased overhead from transport has made the profit margin very small and that it's only a viable business propostion at the tractor trailer load level and above.


----------



## Cherie

Almost everyone I know is 'pro-slaughter' to the point that they would like to see several slaughter plants opened in the US that are closely monitored and inspected.

Not one of them wants to see a horse suffer. Not one of them has personal profit as a motive. All of them that I know want to see plants open locally so that horses DO NOT SUFFER -- so that horses will not be abandoned, starved or neglected or have to be hauled thousands of miles to be processed.

All of the neglect we see include things like people that no longer vaccinate; no longer call a Vet when the horse can be replaced cheaper; to people that abandon horses where they can be hit by cars or to horses found in back pastures starving to death. 

Slaughter is needed to establish a 'floor' or a 'set in price' and to give unwanted horses a 'value' It is the loss of value that has plunged the horse world into complete chaos and made thousands -- if not hundreds of thousands of horses -- suffer or barely survive or get hauled for hours if not days to a foreign poorly monitored plant.

*Absolutely no one can tell me that horses as a whole are better off after the closing of the US plants -- no one.

*Absolutely no one has ever answered my question, either, that I asked some 50 or so pages back. *

What do you think will happen to the 100,000 + horses that are still being slaughtered every year if the killer buyers were not there? If every plant was closed tomorrow or trucking to them was stopped, where would the unwanted horses go?

*I don't want to hear what should change or what you want to see but what could actually happen tomorrow if there was not one slaughter house for these horses to go to?

I am still waiting for my first answer. 
*
I am pro-slaughter BECAUSE I do not want to see horses suffer!

I think closing the last American processing facilities was the worst thing that ever happened for the horses and for the horse market. I think the terrible unintended consequences far outweigh any good that has been done. 

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
*


----------



## Airspace1

I am pro-slaughter BECAUSE I do not want to see horses suffer!

I think closing the last American processing facilities was the worst thing that ever happened for the horses and for the horse market. I think the terrible unintended consequences far outweigh any good that has been done)

OH Please get educated.........Allowing horse slaughter only rewarded criminals and irresponsible people who have NO HISTORY of even helping horse rescues. you might as well legalize Crack to stop crack dealers right..

To say allowing a horse slaughter plant to control abuse and neglect is the foolish statement of the year.. You actually believe what you said.. Face it abuse and neglect will be around for life.. why should horse suffer by slaughter because of dumb humans.. Hey punish these people instead of rewarding them.. GEEZ

The only people supporting horse slaughter are the ones to cash in from it.. Auctioneers that alllow starved horses in auctions, Owners that allow it to starve, and kill buyers that you think they are doing a good deed.. RIGHT..

Their getting paid and you are the idiot supporting them.

History has shown the USDA did regulated it and all plants failed and ignored laws.. Texas even operated illegal so what do pro slaughter say about them NOT paying taxes and forking us US citizens to pay their USDA inspectors weither you own a horse or not..

YOU PAID FOR IT..

I dont see AQHA or any other breeder promoter donating to horse rescues I dont see them supporting our horse bills in congress.. They are all GUILTY..

Oh by the right Cars , Trucks, Homes, etc are at a all time low I guess in the eyes of a pro slaughter person its because of stopping horse slaughter right...

GEEZZ what a joke to allow horse slaughter.


----------



## maura

> The only people supporting horse slaughter are the ones to cash in from it.. Auctioneers that alllow starved horses in auctions, Owners that allow it to starve, and kill buyers that you think they are doing a good deed


Two people posted immediately after you and said that they support reopening the US plants but don't profit from it in any way; if you read this entire thread or board there are many, many more who support reopening US facilities but reap no direct benefit from it. 

So this point has been directly refuted yet you keep repeating it. 

You also haven't responed to my request above to support some of the other points you've made. 

It appears to me that your entire argument is based on emotion; and that when reason or logic is introduced, you start name calling. 

I would welcome a reasonable, intelligent and civil conversation on this pros and cons of this subject; so far, this thread has not provided it. 

I will not moderate this thread as I am currently participating in it, however, I do want to warn you that you are coming very, very close to violating the guidelines of the forum, ie, "you are the idiot", "geez what a joke". If you continue to name call and demonize people who merely disagree with you, another moderator WILL step in.


----------



## Cherie

*I am educated.

I am 'where the rubber hits the road'.* *I am the one the local sheriff calls when emaciated, near dead horses are found in some back pasture. *

*I have probably forgotten more about horses and the horse industry than you will ever know. Your tunnel vision has never seen the real picture or the entire picture. *

I live 3 miles from the biggest sale in Oklahoma. I see anywhere from 100 to 250 horses go through the sale every other Monday night. Lately about 1/2 of the horses get no other bid than from the two kill buyers that are usually there. I have bought several in the past year that were 'rescued' from them as they were the only bidders other than myself. I'll bet I rescued far more of them than you have.

You still have not answered my questions.

*If the plants closed tomorrow, where are 100+ horses going to go that the kill buyers are buying out of every sale? This is just one small sale in this entire country. Multiply that by hundreds of other sales.

*This is the United States. You cannot take away people's property or their right to sell it. So, I hope you have a deep pocket and can 'rescue' all of the thousands of horses that have no one that wants them, will have no one to buy them and have no one to take them for free. In a few years, you could be supporting over a million horses out of your deep pocket.

*You better be careful what you wish for!*


----------



## sarahver

I see that you are new here and may be feeling out the ropes as such. So far this thread has been very civil considering it is a rather contentious issue. I hope it can continue. 

Seems to me that you have little knowledge of horses but solid knowledge of legislature. I wonder if you are not a horse person at all and are perhaps involved with one of the animal rights groups? Based on the following statements:



Airspace1 said:


> So dont always believe pro slaughter ignorance.. they have one goal to breed, and slaughter for profits.


No horse person that has even a shred of knowledge would make the above statement. Breeding and raising a horse costs several thousand dollars _at least_ and usually more. Selling a horse at auction will get you $500-$1000 so that would be a losing game.



Airspace1 said:


> Fact is AQHA really cared they would support our horse bills HR2966 , and S1176 and our transporation bill HR7 which will ban double deckers totally HR7 is also support by the AAEP and the AVMA.


Interesting, what exactly ARE these bills? Genuine question, I simply don't know.


----------



## Cherie

Here are some current (2012) actual statistics about the HSUS. After receiving so much bad PR about their real lack of spending on shelters and actual animals, they upped the support to less than 1% of their donations and less than 1/2 of 1% of their worth. (Before 2011, it was even less)

I think anyone who even considers giving to the HSUS, should reconsider and should donate horse feed, hay and pet food (not cash that can be siphoned off in salaries) to their local shelters. 

Just remember that if you give $1000.00 to the HSUS that $990.00 of it will go to lobbyists and to the huge salaries of the officials. Less than $10.00 of it will actually go to animal shelters and to animal care.

Here are the REAL facts and REAL numbers of the HSUS.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) | Animal Wrongs

What Does the Pet Sheltering Community Really Think About HSUS? | HumaneWatch

Always 'Google' any organization you want to donate your hard earned dollars to. They all have to file paperwork with the IRS and some of these organizations LIKE THE HSUS just scam people out of millions of dollars with misleading ads and a hidden agenda of stopping all animal 'ownership' or any kind. PETA is even worse.

Look for organizations that call themselves 'Animal Welfare' groups and NOT 'Animal Rights' groups.

Oh! And by the way: double deck trailers have already been outlawed for several years for hauling ANY horses. 

*You need to seriously get your facts straight before you try to pull a fast one on people that are a lot smarter and better informed than you are.*


----------



## Saddlebag

If one is infavor of banning horse slaughter then the answer isn't in complaining about it but offering viable alternatives. If you can come up with a viable alternative polititicians will listen. It gets them votes.


----------



## Horse4Ever

I just had an idea. However, I've been a little bit tired lately, so please excuse my ability to transfer my thoughts into words.

Firstly, I think that horse breeding needs to be regulated. I know it might be hard to do, but I think that if it is someone plans it out well enough and has it completely controlled until a system is set, it might just work, because we wouldn't have to slaughter if people weren't irresponsible breeders. Now, I'm not saying we stop breeding all together, but I'm saying that the idiot from the "dumbest horse for sale" ads cannot breed their horse, which is so badly built that it can barely stand, to some random stallion then get tired of the foal and dump it somewhere. Also, I think that they shouldn't allow the person who lives on one acre and can barely afford their dinner, should be allowed to breed their random trail horse. The whole point of breeding is trying to make the horses better.

By the way, I am not pro-slaughter or against it. However, I do believe this, "When we have to kill in order to keep things balanced, then there is something wrong with the foundation." 

So, here is my idea. What if while we are trying to regulate breeding, they open up an option for slaughter (to be designed like Temple Grandin's past slaughter architecture) that is run by the government for unwanted horses where people are allowed to surrender their horses to go peacefully. However, the horse meat goes straight to feeding the stray animals in pounds, homeless shelters, developing countries, etc... That way, the meat is going somewhere useful while providing an answer for unwanted horses.

It is just an idea, and it needs a lot of work, but I think it could be a good foundation.


----------



## Horse4Ever

Horse4Ever said:


> Also, I think that they shouldn't allow the person who lives on one acre and can barely afford their dinner, should be allowed to breed their random trail horse. The whole point of breeding is trying to make the horses better.


I meant to say:

*Also, I think that the person who lives on one acre and can barely afford their own family's dinner, should not be allowed to breed their random trail horse who has nothing to offer to the breed. The whole point of breeding is to make horses better and healthier.*

I wasn't lying when I said I was tired


----------



## NdAppy

How would you regulate breeding though? There are laws on the books already that can't be enforced for a variety of reasons regarding the welfare of dogs/cats. What would be the difference in dealing with horses besides basically taking away people's rights with more laws? (which I am so not for!) Where would the funding come from to enforce these laws? Etc, etc.


----------



## Speed Racer

Horse4Ever said:


> I do believe this, "When we have to kill in order to keep things balanced, then there is something wrong with the foundation."


Nature itself kills in order to keep ecosystems balanced and species in check, so your logic is flawed. Nature isn't some happy place where lions lie down with lambs, and they all eat vegetables.

Everything eats something else, and that something else was alive at some point even if it wasn't sentient.

The problem with expecting irresponsible people to suddenly become responsible is that they_ just won't do it_. So you want more rules and regs in place to bog down and hinder the already responsible people, and which the irresponsible will _again_ ignore. 

Instead of predicating a solution on 'what ifs', 'people should', and 'the government needs to' scenarios, anyone against equine slaughter needs to come up with an actual, workable solution based on_ current_ laws and regulations, not some pie in the sky ideals about what people SHOULD do.


----------



## BoldComic

_If the plants closed tomorrow, where are 100+ horses going to go that the kill buyers are buying out of every sale? This is just one small sale in this entire country. Multiply that by hundreds of other sales_.

The obvious answer here is they will be starved to death, shot by owners and dumped in a ravine (a favorite method in the "hills"), dumped out in the desert to fend for themselves (oh then they die a long painful death), and many other forms of terrible abandonment and disposal that desperate people can think of. I don't see how these options are any better than a slaughterhouse. Those of you arguing against this please do some research on Temple Grandin and her impact on the slaughter industry. It's not always the nightmare you seem to think it is.


----------



## bsms

Horse4Ever said:


> ...because we wouldn't have to slaughter if people weren't irresponsible breeders...


Not true. No one breeds FOR slaughter. They always believe there is a market for the horse, or that they will keep the horse.

The problem is that horses live for 25-30 years, sometimes more. The horse someone gets for their 10 year old daughter may live another 20 years, even if their daughter gives up on horses after 2-3 years.

Industry wide, the folks breeding horses in 2002 (horses that are now just 10 years old) did so based on a booming market and expanding economy. There was no way for them to plan based on what happens when the economy goes into the toilet in 2008. But the horses they bred were only 6 years old in 2008, and just starting to hit their useful age. And horses bred in 2002 may well be alive still in 2030 - do you have any idea what the market will be like in 2022? I don't!


----------



## Ladytrails

From my local Craigslist ads today: (one backyard breeder's solution to his/her unwanted horse herd) -- this is the reality that is repeated thousands of times across the US. At least this owner "selected" his horses' adoptive family. As earlier posts have said, sometimes it's much worse for the horses that are abandoned in the desert, in the hills, or in the dead of winter where there is nothing for them to eat. 

*To person who dumped 12 horses in my hay meadow! (Louisburg KS)*

Date: 2012-03-23, 10:47PM CDT
Reply to: [email protected] [Errors when replying to ads?] 
Dear whoever this may concern,

I appreciate you dumping your horses on my brome pasture... Atleast they are eating! I also am a horse person but have never dumped off my unwanted horses into an opened gate pasture and apparently peel out going 90 (from what neighbor said) late last night. I appreciate the fact that most look due to have foals and 2 have foals on them. Please next time be kind enough to knock on the door and say "hey I dumped my horses off if you need anything dont call". I really didnt need these horses but apparently somewhere in your mind my pasture looked the best! Glad it looked good to you. Thanks for leaving rutts entering the gate, apparently you dont remember it raining yesterday and the days before that, the gate 1/2 mile up has gravel please us that next time. As for the horses I will take care of them but please next time leave halters on them some were very hard to catch and others just so sweet and act like big dogs. Wasn't expecting the 17 hand leopard appaloosa stallion to be a dog either with the fact he almost killed me when i tried to catch him, but know he calmed down when he realized I was putting him in a stall with hay and grain. Hes actually very sweet! If he or any others have papered please stop by and just hand me the papers on these horses and I will take care of them for you. Also the 15.2 dunskin quarter type mare had a nice grulla filly and the bay framed overo mares foal ( black framed overo) cut his leg pretty bad when you dumped them looks to be deep, just thought you might wanna know, he is being medicated and should heal fine.

Please if you would like to see your horses don't mind coming by as I will have probably found them all nice homes by then. You have taught me the lesson of locking my gates, never thought someone would be so nice to give me more horses...

Thanks and Happy trails, well I seem to have your horses so I don't know how you would have such happy trails so just THANKS!


----------



## maura

Great example, Ladytrails. 

My husband likes to tell the story of a city person who retired to the country in his home county and thought he'd like a few ponies to keep the grass eaten down around his pond. This is in farm country, where just about everybody had a grade spotted pony in the back pasture that the kids used to ride. He thought it was great when someone dropped off the first couple. When it got to 25+ he had to padlock his gate.


----------



## BoldComic

At least their being dropped off alive. We've had several horses dumped on private property with bullet holes in their heads. It's ranch property without a full time resident and without fail, every summer we go up we are hauling off dead horses. Never had dead horses dumped out there before the US slaughter plants closed. Dead cows and sheep sure but not horses... until lately. It's pretty sad.


----------



## Cherie

You just aren't listening people. Wayne Pascal of the HSUS has told Congress and everyone else that will listen that there is NO unwanted horse problem. He tells his gullible followers (and donors) that the only reason horses are going to Mexico to be slaughtered is because evil killer buyers are outbidding rescues and individual people who really wanted to buy the horses.

The Sale down the road has over 100 head go straight to Mexico from almost every sale. Most of these horses had no one else that bid on them other than the killer buyers. They are also the only bidders on many of the green-broke registered horses that go through the auction. Both of the biggest killer buyers that come to this sale will have kids that work for them that try them out and if they ride at all, they will try to sell them for saddle horses. They are worth $100.00 to $200.00 more that way than in Mexico. The main killer buyer at this sale buys under the company name of B and R. When they are going on a semi Tuesday morning straight to Mexico, they get penned off to 'B & R straight'. The better registered horses he buys are penned to 'B & R 4'. The ones he takes home to try out are 'B & R 5'. It is not unusual for him to buy the highest selling horses at the sale -- particularly cutting breds and reining breds along with the cheapest slaughter-bound horses. It is not uncommon for him to buy more than half of the horses at this sale. Between him and George Baker from Stroud OK, 3/4 of the horses at the sales have been going to them. But, they sell everything they can privately for more money. The ones they don't get sold will finally go to the slaughter house. These buyers are traders, order buyers and killer buyers. 

The last 3 or 4 sales, saddle horses have come up significantly and a lot more of them are going back out into the country. It is looking more hopeful. There are plenty of people at every sale. 'Good' horses are always high. Decent horses usually get a home. The rest -- no one else bids on them or wants them. 

If there are no other bidders, they are truly 'unwanted'. If the killer buyers were not at every sale, I really do not know what would happen to all of the horses that no one else bids on. The sale owners said he will close the sale down. If that is the case, the 2500 to 5000 horses that go straight to Mexico from this sale every year will end up starved or abandoned. There will be NO PLACE for them to go. 

And as for Ladytrails story -- we have run into several people that have put pipe gates up over their cattle guards because they kept coming home to find horses in their pasture. Of course, the HSUS thinks they are all lying because there are no unwanted horses. Yeah -- right!


----------



## loveduffy

they need to bring back the slaughter houses in the USA .I don't like the idea but it is better than the pain these horses go thought going to Mexico:-(


----------



## tempest

Cherie said:


> If there are no other bidders, they are truly 'unwanted'. If the killer buyers were not at every sale, I really do not know what would happen to all of the horses that no one else bids on. The sale owners said he will close the sale down. If that is the case, the 2500 to 5000 horses that go straight to Mexico from this sale every year will end up starved or abandoned. There will be NO PLACE for them to go.


They'd end up in other people's pastures or trailers, running loose, or neglected in their homes.


----------



## cowgirl928

tempest: i love your display photo. it makes me giggle  

everyone else: check out this months Horse & Rider; there is an article in it that deals with the unwanted horses issue. Also, I am writing 2 papers on this for my final projects in two classes. One is an argument paper presenting both sides of the debate; the other is a paper on the new slaughter ban bill being reviewed by Congress. These papers are going to be LOONG but if it is possible (I haven't checked yet) I will upload a pdf if I can so people can clearly read and understand both sides of the issue from peer reviewed sources and factual data.


----------



## Saddlebag

There is no way to control the breeding of horses as everyone is intitled to earn money. There are thousands of young race horses going to slaughter because of permanent injury or not fast enough. The lucky ones find homes but the horses greatly outnumber the buyers. Close the horse racing industry and a lot of people are out of work. The best way is education. Back yard breeders who feel the need to breed Precious in hopes of having a clone, also contribute greatly to the numbers of unwanted. Unless a person is willing to make a life time commitment my feeling is Precious shouldn't be bred. With the rapidly changing economy a life time commitment is nigh to impossible.


----------



## Saddlebag

Cherie, you've nailed it. Most kill buyers have a pretty good sense of the horse market and as you say many of the horses go back to their ranches for assessment. Many are sold privately as there is more money in it. They are well fed. Years ago, one could go to the dog food plant and if there was a horse in their corrals that you liked, you could by it, by the pound.


----------



## Cherie

When I was just starting out in the training business in 1960, I bought many prospects from the 'Columbine Packing Company' on the East outskirts of Denver. They killed every Monday and Wed thru Fri you could go through the pens and buy any horse they had for 'cost plus $10.00.' I remember buying a tattooed TB (with no papers) for $77.00 (too slow I guess as he was sound but a bolting, runaway son-of-a-gun) and sold him for $1200.00 to H/J barn after riding him for 3 months. Some made good horses and others had to go back because they were not sound and one was 'locoed'. 

At that time, there were 3 slaughter houses in Colorado processing horses and a really huge one (the Crown Prince Dog Food Company) in Nebraska.


----------



## Saddlebag

Cherie, a friend when to the dog food plant and picked up a wild little appaloosa about 14.3 for cheap. This little guy was a scrapper but soon blossomed as a gaming horse. The fellow was 6'3 so sold him to his girlfriend. Within a year no one could beat this little guy in barrels, especially if it was muddy. His years running wild had given him a keen sense of dealing with all conditions. He was always kept barefoot. When he was older he was the best uncle when a mare foaled and the best baby sitter going. Had Art not gone to have a look-see, the app would have been dog food.


----------

