# Horse Slaughter Ban- Worldwide



## FlightFireNurse

Hello all,

I have been raised around horsed my entire life and showed when I was younger. My mother is a volunteer for the USERL and we have a great passion for horses.

I am a student and I have to write a paper arguing a topic of my choice.

I have chosen to argue that horse slaughter should be banned worldwide. Other than the obvious reasons, I am looking for other reasons and thought you guys could help me out a little more.

Thank you in advance!

-FFN


----------



## kevinshorses

I completely disagree and if you did a little research you would realize what the problems would be. Horses are not pets in many areas of the world and are used for food because hungry people don't generaly waste hundreds of pounds of meat and there are alot of hungry people in the world. Enviromentaly it would be a disaster. Here in teh U.S. there are nearly 10 million horses and the lack of slaughter facilities is causing some enviromental concerns due to the difficulty and expense to bury an animal the size of a horse. There is also no entity that can enforce a world wide ban and that's a good thing. 

Since the bleeding hearts have managed to shut down horse processing in the US there have been hundreds of horses abandoned around the country. In the west they are dumped on public land and in the east they are dumped at state parks and along roads where they often get hit by cars or starve. 

It's a bad idea and it would be impossible to enforce even if it was a good idea. Think with your head and not your heart and you will see reality.


----------



## mls

FlightFireNurse said:


> I have chosen to argue that horse slaughter should be banned worldwide. Other than the obvious reasons, I am looking for other reasons and thought you guys could help me out a little more.


What are the obvious reasons? Can't say I was aware of any.


----------



## FlightFireNurse

That is exactly what I am looking for. Thank you Kevinshorses!

Any other opinions?


----------



## Tina

I am from Canada and here horses are still shipped out for slaughter. I don't necessarily agree with the method in which it is conducted however agree with the concept for the following reasons. I have been to numerous auctions where extremely aggressive, old and sick horses stand and wait to be driven through. I would really rather watch these animals be put down than continue a life of unfairness or suffering. I compare this idea to the idea of any other animal. A vet can go and put an animal down for any owner for any reason. However this is an expensive method plus one has to deal with the body afterwards. I would much rather see the animals be used for meat than dig a hole and have wild dogs and such eating at it later. 

The loss of any animal is tragic but it's a part of life. Afterall when is the last time you ate a steak or a hamburger? Everything has a purpose in life, some of it is just harder to deal with when you have a passion for it.


----------



## FlightFireNurse

mls said:


> What are the obvious reasons? Can't say I was aware of any.


Really? So they slaughter them in a humane way? I seriously doubt that.

The key to this, as everything from mental health and other major problems of the world is to prevent the problem in the first place. Prevention is always cheaper than dealing with the end results.


----------



## mls

FlightFireNurse said:


> Really? So they slaughter them in a humane way? I seriously doubt that.
> 
> The key to this, as everything from mental health and other major problems of the world is to prevent the problem in the first place. Prevention is always cheaper than dealing with the end results.


The United States cannot control what other countries do. In the states - yes the plants were run humanely.

I believe in slaughter as a humane alternative to a starved/abused/abandonded horse.


----------



## ridergirl23

I dont think it should be banned. that just means theres more starving, abused horses, that would have been put down, but no, someone had to ban slaughtering so now they are just suffering. I wish they all did it in a humane way. but if people banned it worldwide then like kevin said, Enviromentaly it would be a disaster.


----------



## FlightFireNurse

ridergirl23 said:


> I dont think it should be banned. that just means theres more starving, abused horses, that would have been put down, but no, someone had to ban slaughtering so now they are just suffering. I wish they all did it in a humane way. but if people banned it worldwide then like kevin said, Enviromentaly it would be a disaster.


Thanks Ridergirl23! 

Beautiful horse in your avatar!


----------



## kevinshorses

FlightFireNurse said:


> Really? So they slaughter them in a humane way? I seriously doubt that.


Most horses in large plants are killed by captive bolt which is very very humane. Have you done any research about horse slaughter that didn't involve youtube or PETA? If you want to write a good paper then you need to have both sides of the issue.


----------



## FlightFireNurse

kevinshorses said:


> Most horses in large plants are killed by captive bolt which is very very humane. Have you done any research about horse slaughter that didn't involve youtube or PETA? If you want to write a good paper then you need to have both sides of the issue.


I have a argument based research pre-plan that I am going by. I needed to get opinion's first and then conduct research based on the opinions. 

I will definitely get both sides of the issue.

Thanks!


----------



## Speed Racer

OP, you're going to find a very large contingent of people here who have no problem with equine slaughter.

A worldwide ban isn't feasible, for the simple reason that even in the same country there are people who oppose it and those who don't. The only thing the antis have managed to do in the U.S. is get the slaughter plants closed. Processing for human consumption is still legal, although the _marketing_ and _sale_ of horse meat for human consumption isn't. There are several states where even that has been banned, California being one, but not many out of the 50 even go that far.

Other countries have no such bans, and some horses are even raised as meat animals. A worldwide ban would put the horse meat producers out of business, thus damaging the local economy of that region. It would also have far reaching economic consequences, because as the local economies collapsed, it would affect the total economy of those particular countries, which would affect their abilities to trade, buy, and sell in the global marketplace.

We are all connected economically. If one country's economy collapses, the shock waves would reach other countries. Why do you think the current U.S. economic crisis has spelled disaster for other nations?

A ban on horse meat isn't based on economic necessity, it's driven by nothing more than emotional desire to see a species exempted that only _*some*_ people see as 'better' or 'more deserving' than any other meat animal on the planet.

If you want your animals exempt, don't ever put them in the position where they could possibly go for meat. Otherwise, just because you have an overreaching emotional connection to a particular species, doesn't mean everyone should or could.


----------



## FlightFireNurse

Thank you Speed Racer..

I have not researched this topic at all in the past and was actually against it. However, after having this discussion, it has opened my eyes to a different view and it seems more logical but yet hard to take. I may take the essay in a different direction after this thread.

Thanks!


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Well said SR!


----------



## kevinshorses

FlightFireNurse said:


> Thank you Speed Racer..
> 
> I have not researched this topic at all in the past and was actually against it. However, after having this discussion, it has opened my eyes to a different view and it seems more logical but yet hard to take. I may take the essay in a different direction after this thread.
> 
> Thanks!


 
That is the mark of maturity. The ability to change your mind when confroted with evidence.


----------



## Speed Racer

FFN, I used to be rabidly anti equine slaughter.

After doing the proper research both for and against, I reached the conclusion that the only reasons people are against it are pretty much emotion-based. After that, I had to side with those who really don't see a problem with it.

We've seen a lot of starving, neglected horses here in the U.S. these past 5 to 8 years. It has little to do with the slaughter plants closing down, and more to do with the economy. If people can't afford to feed and house their families, they're certainly not going to spend money to properly care for a very large animal with expensive needs.

The auctions are still alive and well in this country, and just as many horses still go to slaughter as they did when the plants were open and running. The only difference now is that they have longer trailer rides, and the U.S. has no way to regulate how the animals are treated once they're over our borders.

Horse meat sales are driven by that easiest to understand economic standard, supply and demand. If the demand goes down, so do the slaughter numbers. If the demand goes up, so do the numbers. The demand has remained fairly steady, so horses are still being shunted through Canada and Mexico.

We have to remember that if we deny someone their livelihood, it doesn't just affect them. It affects their whole economy, which in turn affects the global marketplace. If by banning something worldwide we create global economic chaos, that in turn leads to _more_ abuse and neglect, not less.

Don't get me wrong, I love my horses. To me, they're pets. As long as I do everything I can to keep them well fed and cared for properly while they're under my stewardship, I understand that I have no right to say what happens to them if I should sell or give them away.


----------



## spence

FlightFireNurse said:


> Thank you Speed Racer..
> 
> I have not researched this topic at all in the past and was actually against it. However, after having this discussion, it has opened my eyes to a different view and it seems more logical but yet hard to take. I may take the essay in a different direction after this thread.
> 
> Thanks!


i used to be rabidly anti slaughter as well. a great friend opened my eyes to a different view. he simply stated that there are those horses in the world that are truly useless, either that screwed up in the head or physically not worth anything for whatever reason. what else is there to do with them other than put them down and let them go to waste?

i am glad to see that you are learning more about this topic, and honestly i thank you! i have a speech i have to do for a class and this is going to the top as a possible topic!


----------



## FlightFireNurse

Hi Spence, 

When I researched more, and realized that the reason I was against it was not for the best interest, it made my presentation that much more entertaining for class.

I am almost positive that 90% of my class will be for the ban. However, I hope to change their minds, like I have, after my presentation.

Thanks to everyone that has contributed to this thread. 

FFN



spence said:


> i used to be rabidly anti slaughter as well. a great friend opened my eyes to a different view. he simply stated that there are those horses in the world that are truly useless, either that screwed up in the head or physically not worth anything for whatever reason. what else is there to do with them other than put them down and let them go to waste?
> 
> i am glad to see that you are learning more about this topic, and honestly i thank you! i have a speech i have to do for a class and this is going to the top as a possible topic!


----------



## Speed Racer

Thank _you_, FFN.

You've restored, at least a little, my faith that people are inherently intelligent and are open to changing their minds when presented with logical, factual information.

I dislike hysterical rantings or abrupt dismissals when something doesn't fit someone's ideals of how the world is supposed to work in their minds.

Equine slaughter is inherently a hot button topic, and certainly not helped by the likes of PETA, HSUS, and all the other animal rights groups. It's all about emotional manipulation for those groups, not about real research and cold, hard facts.


----------



## pieinthesky

I believe there would be a bigger problem if kill pens in the US didnt exist. Of course there horses are sent to mexico and canada from the US. Think of how many horses would die from neglect, if people weren't selling them off at auctions. No one would be able to get rid of them. I think there might even be more herds of wild horses in rural areas, and then BLM would have to step it up even more, and cost people more in tax dollars. 

When a horse become a nusence and no one takes care of it because the owners cant afford necessities and cant get rid of them, it leads to an even worse death then slaughter. Selling a horse for slaughter is also alot cheeper then having to put it down and having the carcass hauled away.


----------



## ptvintage

I was anti-slaughter, and then I had to write a presaudive paper for english class senior year, and I choose horse slaughter. In my research, I found that it really is a necessary evil. There seemly aren't enough horse lovers/money in the world to have good homes for every horse. The alternatives to horse slaughter (starvation, neglect) are much more horrible than horses being killed humanly.

If I was going to argue anything, I would argue for better mass transportation for horses. When I was researching before, that was the only part I could really hate, but even then, other animals are transported the same way, like cattle.

By the way, there really is no way to make a world wide ban on horse slaughter, or really anything. Just look at world politics, country's cultures, lifestyles, religions, and rules are just too different. There is no world government, regardless of how many countries or organizations think there is.

If you are really interested in stopping horse slaughter, here is the way to do it: stop the demand for it. Make people not want to eat it, not want to use it. If they stop buying horse meat, there will be no market for the horse slaughter plants, therefore they won't make a profit, therefore they will have no reason to slaughter horses.


----------



## speedy da fish

WOOP, i sort of agree that horse should be killed but i think the more important thing is that they are not transprted to their deaths, especially in double deckers GRRR


----------



## kevinshorses

Why? I can't see how that is inhumane. They are also pretty loosely packed in there because they can only haul so many pounds.


----------



## ptvintage

Actually, when I was doing my research, they were packed in tightly. Horses with broken legs would be right next to others, and be tousled around. Sometimes horses will fall and gets stepped on and climbed over. Sounds painful to me. Stallions would also be right in with mares, trying to mount them and brawling with others. Its things you would expect if you crammed a whole bunch of horses together in a small space.

I have no idea how to regulate such things, and I'm not saying I'm for regulation either, but there's no point in pretending it doesn't happen.


----------



## spence

well, that's a strange bit of truth in my limited thinking. without ever having seen them transported like that, i would say that LOOSE transport is not necessarily the BEST idea. most economical? quite possibly. it's one thing i actually wouldn't be opposed to looking into different shipping methods. at least putting like animals in the same trailer. (like no stallions with a bunch of mares, etc).


----------



## FlightFireNurse

ridergirl23 said:


> Enviromentaly it would be a disaster.


Could anyone provide sources or give me a little more information on how this would be an environmental disaster?

Thanks!


----------



## Speed Racer

FFN, if slaughter were to be banned worldwide, what would we do with all the carcasses when horses die?

Horses are large animals, so if they're buried instead of being processed, especially if they're euthed chemically, the chemicals can pollute the water tables and leach into the soil. Even if the animal is euthed by captive bolt, a large carcass rotting in the wrong area can easily cause chaos for the water supply.

In many places you can't bury a horse; it has to be hauled away by a renderer or cremated. Neither of those options is inexpensive, and someone who can't afford to feed the animal isn't likely to want to pay a service to haul away a body. 

Think of that on a worldwide scale. If every horse was buried or left to rot where it fell, the ecological impact would be massive. Scavenger numbers would escalate, although some would surely be poisoned by chemically euthed meat.

In nature, wild creatures do not get to die of old age. Either they're taken down as babies, or infirmity and illness make them easy targets for predators. Predators also help keep their numbers in line. 

Since horses are domestic animals and bred and protected by humans, their lives are much longer than those of their feral cousins'. Their deaths are also managed by humans, rather than left to chance. So when they die there are no predators involved, which means a very large carcass of which to dispose. 

I live in one of the areas where it_ isn't_ illegal to bury a horse. These places are becoming increasingly few and far between, because we have to consider the ecological impact of burying such a large creature. Once human populations reach a certain density in an area, it's dangerous health-wise to bury a large animal.

Composting is an interesting way to get rid of a large body but you need the proper facilities and equipment in order to do it correctly, and most people don't have either one.


----------



## kevinshorses

ptvintage said:


> Actually, when I was doing my research, they were packed in tightly. Horses with broken legs would be right next to others, and be tousled around. Sometimes horses will fall and gets stepped on and climbed over. Sounds painful to me. Stallions would also be right in with mares, trying to mount them and brawling with others. Its things you would expect if you crammed a whole bunch of horses together in a small space.
> 
> I have no idea how to regulate such things, and I'm not saying I'm for regulation either, but there's no point in pretending it doesn't happen.


*Can you cite your research?* I have loaded horses on a semi trailer and you generally run out of legal wieght before the horses are packed very tightly. Also it is in the owners best interest to see that all the horses get there in the best possible shape. Horses that have broken legs and fall down and get stepped on will not be worth much so that is avoided whenever possible. It does happen with any animal but it is rare and every precaution is taken to limit it.


----------



## horsegirl15

I personally think horse slaughter is inhumaneIf you want to write a paper on this listening to both sides is good. I just recently wrote one about this topic for my english class and i tried to look at it from both sides and not be biast (it was hard.). Instead of doing worldwide , try to start smaller like banning the shippment of horses outside of the united states. I wrote mine on the passing of the prevention of equine cruelty act of 2009. After doing some research i discovered slaughter plants were not as nice as some people make them out to be.I discovered there were alot of other options for horses other than slaughter. It was quite eye opening. The humane socitey of the united states has a whole section on horse slaughter on their website . use peoples opinions but keep alot of fact too, because i lost points on mine for not enough fact on the opposing side and more opinion Hope that helps


----------



## kevinshorses

horsegirl15 said:


> It was quite eye opening. The humane socitey of the united states has a whole section on horse slaughter on their website . use peoples opinions but keep alot of fact too, because i lost points on mine for not enough fact on the opposing side and more opinion Hope that helps


You will find **** few facts on the HSUS website.


----------



## WSArabians

Believe it not, in countries like Canada and previously (until some government let all those bleeding hearts in) the US, horses were slaughtered humanely, and ALL slaughter houses here (in Canada) require veternarian's on hand during all slaughter times should a horse come in with a broken leg, back, trailer issues, etc. 
It's a quick shot to the head - bang, boom, done. 
No slaughter? They strave, dedhydrate, suffer while their body's organs shut down one by one until the brain finally quits. Lasts months. 
I wonder which is more humane.

Banning horse slaughter worldwide would be, honestly, the most idiotic thing I could ever think of. Unless, of course, someone out there was willing to put up money, feed, vet, farrier, training, etc for 1 billion horses each year. Which isn't going to happen. Because I can bet you that every person who voted to ban slaughter in the US hasn't rescued ONE of those horses that are now being shipped up here, or to Mexico where, you're right, the slaughter laws are a lot more lax due to financial restraints.

Fact of the matter is, horse slaughter is needed. We kill people in our jail systems because they just ain't right, no reason why messed up horses deserve to be treated any "better" (because in reality, being slaughtered is much nicer alternative to the situations most of the would be slaughter horses are in now).
It's a much needed part of the horse industry, much like the scrapyard is for the vehicle industry.

I'd probably go ape**** if horse slaughter were banned worldwide. What an incredible, unrealistic, cruel and UNEDUCATED thing to even consider. Really. In fact, I'd be very tempted to slaughter those who enforced that rule...

Kidding...

Mostly. 

Anyways, good luck with your paper and presentation! I'd like to hear how it went for you!


----------



## WSArabians

kevinshorses said:


> You will find **** few facts on the HSUS website.


LOL!
Peta, perhaps? They might be more open minded. :shock: :lol:


----------



## chrispy

Slaughter is not the same as euthanasia. I understand that horses are huge, expensive animals. I understand that people breed too many horses, both "good" and "bad". I understand that the very old, the sick, the lame, and the unwanted might need to be "put down", just as with cats and dogs. But I don't understand why that means they have to undergo the trauma of slaughter. Don't try to tell me it can be done humanely. And don't try to tell me that the videos on YouTube somehow aren't "real":
YouTube - Horse Slaughter in the United States


----------



## chrispy

I hit "post" before I was done. Here is the complete version:

Slaughter is not the same as euthanasia. I understand that horses are huge, expensive animals. I understand that people breed too many horses, both "good" and "bad", and often for the wrong reasons (i.e., greed and selfishness). I understand that the very old, the sick, the lame, and the unwanted might need to be "put down", just as with cats and dogs. I understand that their bodies are difficult to dispose of due to their size. But I don't understand why that means they have to undergo the trauma of transport and slaughter.

Don't try to tell me that the videos on YouTube somehow aren't "real". They aren't being Photoshopped or staged.



 I know that some efforts have been made to improve the machinery and methods in some places, but I surely wouldn't want my horse treated that way no matter how "up-to-date" and "humane" and "regulated" the facility! (Nor do I give a hoot about Temple Grandin.)
Horse slaughter conditions in Mexico explored by AAEP group - March 1, 2009
Newly released USDA documents prove horse slaughter in the U.S. involved alarming cruelty

I find it incredible that people who have horses, who purport to love horses, and who spend so much time and money and energy keeping their horses healthy and happy could possibly think it is OK to treat unwanted horses this way just because it is "inconvenient" to do otherwise or because it might "upset local economies". How many people on this forum will put their old, worn-out buddies onto one of those trailers? I hope none of you.

And, no, I am not a member of PETA (would it be a crime if I were?). And, yes, I an a vegetarian, and 90%+ of my horse stuff is synthetic (I'm shopping for a bridle). And I don't support capital punishment, either. Though what any of those things has to do with the subject under discussion, I'm not sure.

One last point: Millions of cows and sheep stress public lands much more than a few hundred thousand wild horses ever will. Not to mention enormous amounts of water and crops fed to "meat" animals. Get rid of that and the wild horse "problem" won't be a problem.


----------



## foreignmusic

Ban horse slaughter world-wide? Can't ban the resulting need for "surplus" (don't like this reference but it is accurate for the US) management until the ever-incoming supply IS accomodated/regulated. Cultural differences will make that essentially impossible and perhaps even conflict with certain rights for some countries. Different countries have different reasons for slaughter needs.

Show me the field, the bank account and the manpower/services that will actually step up and maintain the unslaughtered and I will buy into it. Maybe. Until then, it is the supply that needs to be more organized/limited (and good luck with that: regulating human nature is up to GOD as HE is the only one able).


----------



## chrispy

There are many.

Equine Rescue Adoption, Placement & Rescue Links


----------



## foreignmusic

Chripsy, great links! But. Missed my point : ). That is obviously not enough. If there are ENOUGH fields, cash and manpower, why is slaughter still an ongoing and currently necessary(jmo) source of elimination?


----------



## Speed Racer

chrispy said:


> There are many.
> 
> Equine Rescue Adoption, Placement & Rescue Links


There might be 'many', but there certainly aren't enough.

You should be aware, and if you're not I wonder where you've been keeping yourself, that rescues are full to bursting right now. There are also many that are going under, because the number of abandoned and neglected horses are shooting through the roof and they can't keep up.

For those of you decrying slaughter as cruel, are _you_ willing to step up and adopt all those horses who are worth essentially nothing except as meat, and continue with their vet care, housing, and feeding for 20 plus years? 

My guess is no. All you want is for _someone else_ to do something, while you donate a dribble here and there and feel sainted for doing so.

I get extremely annoyed at those of you who don't have a realistic view of horses, and think those of us who see no problem with equine slaughter are somehow less humane and loving to the animals in our care. Since _you_ think horses should be exempt, somehow you're more caring and compassionate than those of us who know the actual issues.

Instead of watching inflammatory videos and reading slanted, biased articles from PETA and HSUS as your only sources of 'information', why don't you do some actual research? Get back to me when you've looked at _*all*_ sides of the issue and have a clue what the_ real_ problems are concerning unwanted, abandoned, and neglected horses.

Until you can have an informed, realistic argument and tell me what YOU plan to do to care for these unwanted animals, all I'm hearing is the same emotional blathering I've heard for years.


----------



## ptvintage

kevinshorses said:


> *Can you cite your research?* I have loaded horses on a semi trailer and you generally run out of legal wieght before the horses are packed very tightly. Also it is in the owners best interest to see that all the horses get there in the best possible shape. Horses that have broken legs and fall down and get stepped on will not be worth much so that is avoided whenever possible. It does happen with any animal but it is rare and every precaution is taken to limit it.


I obviously cannot quote the exact research I used, since it was about 6 years ago when I was in high school. I didn't save my high school work.

I did a google search just now, and this is a website that seems to say the same things I read in high school. 

Survey of Trucking Practices and Injury to Slaughter Horses

Before you try to get into an internet fight with me, since that seems to be the direction you are interested in going, I am not some kind of horse transport protester. All I said was IF there is something that people should complain about horse slaughter now, it would be transportation. The horse slaughter itself is a necessary evil, but steps could still be taken to make the horse's trip there as painless as possible, and that would be a better route to take instead of trying to ban horse slaughter.


----------



## KrystaLake

Okay I am one for slaughter BUT I believe it should be done more humanely, there is documented proof that it is not done humanely in the Canadian plants. (Warning VERY graphic)
CHDC Chambers of Carnage

I think plants should be opened back up in the US to prevent the inhumane transport of horses. Yes cattle are transported the same way but the trucks are designed for cattle not horses. 

There really has to be a more humane way to kill them before they are butchered. 

JMHO.


----------



## savvylover112

FlightFireNurse said:


> Really? So they slaughter them in a humane way? I seriously doubt that.
> 
> The key to this, as everything from mental health and other major problems of the world is to prevent the problem in the first place. Prevention is always cheaper than dealing with the end results.


Over here yes they do slaughter them humanely just as cows sheep pigs and any other form of livestock are. Horses are livestock same as any other animal that is eaten anywhere in the world. Does this mean I would send my horse to slaughter? no just as my friend who has a pet cow would not send her cow to slaughter but they do have other cows that are bred for food but she would not send her one cow to slaughter because she loves that one.

As I love my horse she would not go to slaughter but there is an overpopulation of horses and the overpopulation of horses and the banning of humane slaughter plants just drives people to slaughter unwanted animals in an inhumane way so the banning of the slaughter plants brings about inhumane slaughtering and the plants do slaughter them humanely.


----------



## WSArabians

You will always find the worst of the worst videos. 

Yes, Krysta, we had our moments in horse slaughter where several plants on shut down, charged, fined, you name it. It happens. NOTHING is ever done perfectly. Not once, maybe not even a few times. But it gets corrected. 

But as I said, it's a needed part of the horse industry.
Rescues can't take anymore - They don't have the money or manpower to feed the ones they got! Horses are being abdandoned left, right, and freaking centre to fend for themselves until they starve to death because no one want to take care of them anymore. THAT'S humane??

I realise that it sucks, Chrispy, but it's necessary, no matter how **** ugly it is. Yeah, those videos will pull at your heart strings. So would watching a herd of horses starve to death because if someone is too cheap to haul them into slaughter, they sure as heck ain't going to have the vet come out and put them down with a needle. IMO, that's worse how matter how you look at it.

I agree with Speed Racer. It's an ugly part of the horse world, but until everyone quits crying about it and actually DOES something about it, it is always going to be needed.


----------



## chrispy

I do believe I mentioned euthanasia. I also mentioned overbreeding due to greed and selfishness. Basically, where there is money, power, and self-gratification there is cruelty. The "excess" horses are unproductive racehorses, worn out show horses, horses who never should have been bred due to poor genetics or lack of homes, old stock, etc. I understand that financial circumstances can change, but I do think people need to think long and hard about their ability to take care of an animal (or a child, for that matter) for life before committing to one. I also think breeders need to make sure they can place there animals in good situations, including a take-back option. And backyard breeders probably shouldn't. As for the racing industry . . . that's another topic!

If we humans are to interact with other creatures, I think we have a responsibility to them, even if that means killing them humanely if we cannot care for them properly. From what I am reading, we agree on that.

In my opinion, however, slaughterhouses, no matter how well run and no matter how "good" the transport, are not the solution. I think the respectful solution is to put the animal down in a safe, quiet, familiar place and have the remains rendered or cremated even if it costs a few bucks -- just as would be done if the animal were dying of something like colic -- just as we do for other "excess" companion animals.

Maybe breed organizations could put together a fund for that purpose if it is such an extreme financial hardship to rid oneself of an unwelcome burden (sarcasm intended).

I don't understand the difference between a "pet" and "those other ones over there that don't have names so I don't have to care about them".


----------



## chrispy

"So would watching a herd of horses starve to death because if someone is too cheap to haul them into slaughter, they sure as heck ain't going to have the vet come out and put them down with a needle"
I agree. But if they are starving because they haven't been sent to slaughter, they still will be starving. That is the job of neighbors to report to the authorities, who I hope will save who they can, humanely put down those they can't, and prosecute the living daylights out of the "owners".

This is a very painful and emotional subject. I know it is an imperfect world, but I don't think that means we should throw up our hands and stop trying to make it better. If we, the horse community, can't come up with a solution better than transport cross-country to auction yards, holding pens, and slaughterhouses, I don't think we deserve to be called horsemen and horsewomen.
​


----------



## ohmyitschelle

_Crispy I see you're trying to be logical and have some great points in your opinion. However *'why not euthanasia'*... for a wide scale job, this would cost FAR more than the current system. Why do you think they don't do it now? There's also the complications of the drug dosage, which of course a qualified veterinarian would administer, but other factors like the waiting period to make sure the horse moves on peacefully would slow the whole progression down. And this isn't always the case... have you see a horse be PTS? Sometimes it can be very traumatic for them, and granted I have seen the harsh videos out there, and they have pulled on my heart strings but I believe that the quickness of the gun is far more humane than any other method. At one point I was completely against horse slaughter, but like others in this thread, I did my research and realised it is a necessary evil.

I know not everyone will accept my stance, and I do like to hear opinions of others on this topic, however I have to completely agree with others here, banning is for human emotions, not for all those poor horses out there who have no home and will end up in a far worse off position than being slaughtered.

JMHO.
_


----------



## maura

Who participating in this conversation has assisted with a chemical euthanasia?

Who participating in this conversaton has assissted with euthanasia by bullet or captive bolt? 

A persistent fallacy often repeated in this threads is that euthanasia by injection is inherently "more humane" than euthanasia by bullet or captive bolt. 

I am willing to bet that anyone who has witnessed or assisted both methods will tell you that bullet or captive bolt is quicker/more humane. I have assisted at both and that is my very firm opinion. It is emotionally upsetting to *me* to have the horse destroyed by bullet, but it is quicker and more humane for the horse. 

There is also a persistent fallacy in the emotional agruments on this issue that it's somehow better/ethically superior to bury the carcass after whatever method of euthanasia.

Again, how many of the people proposing that burial is somehow better have actually *done* it? Not paid someone to do for you while you're gone from the barn, but dug the hole, transported the body by whatever method, and buried it? Or hauled an old, injured or sick animal to the land fill to be euthanized on site because that was the only option in your locality?

There is nothing warm and fuzzy, dignified, nice or even vaguely comforting about it. 

If, in the future, these conversations were limited to people who had actual, hands on experience with the issues we're discussing, rather than internet research heavy on the propaganda, they conversations would be much, much shorter.


----------



## maura

I'm going to amend my proposal above - 

If you don't have actual, hands on experience with euthanasia or disposal, I have a way you can still participate with an *informed*, rational opinion. 

Call your local horse rescue. Tell them that you're hooking up your tractor trailer and going to the nearest livestock auction. Tell them that you are going to buy every healthy, potentially adoptable horse you see at the auction until you're trailer's full. You'll be using your own money to buy them; ask the rescue how many they're willing to take, care for and find homes for. 

Repeat this excercise until you've placed one tractor trailer load of horses. 

Then come back to this conversation and defend your position that rescue and adoption is the solution to the problem.


----------



## ohmyitschelle

maura said:


> Who participating in this conversation has assisted with a chemical euthanasia?
> 
> Who participating in this conversaton has assissted with euthanasia by bullet or captive bolt?
> 
> A persistent fallacy often repeated in this threads is that euthanasia by injection is inherently "more humane" than euthanasia by bullet or captive bolt.
> 
> I am willing to bet that anyone who has witnessed or assisted both methods will tell you that bullet or captive bolt is quicker/more humane. I have assisted at both and that is my very firm opinion. It is emotionally upsetting to *me* to have the horse destroyed by bullet, but it is quicker and more humane for the horse.



_Thank you. You said it much better than I had. I have personally been to a slaughter yard *granted did not watch what happens but the sight of the rotting pit will never leave my mind*... and I have also been present when a horse has been euthanised. I completely agree, the captive bolt is much quicker... and less traumatic than the injection. I fail to see how an injection which has to take it's course around an entire body to shut the system of such a large animal down is far more humane than the bullet which kills more quickly. 

Yes its far more horrible to think about... but like I said in my above post and like others have too, people are so against slaughter the way it is, because it pulls on our heart strings, and the heavy emotional attachment we have to these beautiful animals. _


----------



## chrispy

Question: If a well-administered bolt or bullet is faster and more humane (which I can believe -- no I haven't seen a horse put down -- yet-- but I have been there for other animals) why can't a vet do that instead of an injection? I would rather a vet or trained tech in a quiet, controlled, kind situation than a slaughterhouse worker with the assembly-line mentality that implies.

I also agree that burial of horses is going to be reserved for special circumstances. But cremation (although messy) and rendering still are options, are they not, if the will is there? Horses do die at stables and the corpses are carted off to one of those options. Our stable had a horse die of a heart attack just last week, and the body was removed immediately, so it obviously is possible.

As for expense, how many horses are we talking about? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? How much does it cost to transport cross-country, hold, auction, and slaughter versus how much to humanely euthanize and dispose (by whatever method) at home or a nearby rescue facility? And if the numbers could be reduced through the efforts of horse lovers -- discouraging backyard breeding, for example -- how would that affect those costs?

I don't have answers for any of these questions (and I have to get to work!) but am curious. First, acknowledge the problem. Second, gather data. Third, brainstorm ideas for changing the status quo.


----------



## Powerstroke

The point is Crispy, people dont care. As much as we would like them too there are sick people in this world who do not care and would like to make a buck off their starving horse at a slaughter auction then pay 300 to euthanize it. (Which btw here it is around 300 to euthanize, and its 100 to get the horse hauled off) Not to mention the fact that it is illegal (atleast here) to burry a horse yourself, in your yard. So you can do the math yourself, there are millions of abused and neglected horses in the States that need an escape. 

Now do the math for the rescue facility. Sure there are bunches, but have you ever gone to a rescue facility that wasnt over flowing? That actually had room for a few more horses? Imagine how much it costs in vetbills, feed, constant care to re-habilitate a horse. At our local horse rescue they are turning away horses (i know the lady who runs it personally) the owner gets calls nearly 2 times a day about people wanting to drop off horses, reporting abused horses, etc. Not to mention the fact that in these times its hard to find people to ADOPT a rescue horse who can continue to provide for its medical (if it were to have any) and other needs. Im sure if a person has a starving horse, and all the local rescues are full they are not going to drive far out of their way to get rid of a horse. 

People simply do not care. Its a sad truth.


----------



## Speed Racer

Powerstroke said:


> People simply do not care. Its a sad truth.


What 'people' are you referring to?

The 'people' who can't feed or house their families, yet somehow are expected to continue to care for a luxury animal that they purchased when they were financially solvent? 

Or the 'people' who see horses for what they really are, livestock, and not as larger than average house pets?

Most 'people' _do_ care. However, _your_ rights to do as you wish with your animals ends where they infringe upon _my_ rights.

The folks screaming, 'save the pwetty horsies!' have never gone hungry a day in their lives, and have plenty of money and leisure time to worry about what others are doing that might not agree with their own personal philosophies on life.

Horse slaughter is no more barbaric or inhumane than any other slaughter. Thousands of meat animals a day are processed, and yet I don't hear anyone wailing, wringing their hands, and gnashing their teeth over the pigs, cattle, chickens, turkeys, goats, lambs, etc. being shoved down the gullets of the meat eating public.

I also see very few people eschewing leather for synthetic tack, even though the cow, ostrich, or goat who provided that leather wasn't killed any more humanely than any other animal.

So please, spare me the 'people are cruel and don't care' speech. Sure, some folks _are_ uncaring, neglectful, and abusive, but to tar everyone with the same brush just because they don't have your particular outlook is wrong, bigoted, and extremely narrow minded.


----------



## savvylover112

Speed Racer said:


> What 'people' are you referring to?
> 
> The 'people' who can't feed or house their families, yet somehow are expected to continue to care for a luxury animal that they purchased when they were financially solvent?
> 
> Or the 'people' who see horses for what they really are, livestock, and not as larger than average house pets?
> 
> Most 'people' _do_ care. However, _your_ rights to do as you wish with your animals ends where they infringe upon _my_ rights.
> 
> The folks screaming, 'save the pwetty horsies!' have never gone hungry a day in their lives, and have plenty of money and leisure time to worry about what others are doing that might not agree with their own personal philosophies on life.
> 
> Horse slaughter is no more barbaric or inhumane than any other slaughter. Thousands of meat animals a day are processed, and yet I don't hear anyone wailing, wringing their hands, and gnashing their teeth over the pigs, cattle, chickens, turkeys, goats, lambs, etc. being shoved down the gullets of the meat eating public.
> 
> I also see very few people eschewing leather for synthetic tack, even though the cow, ostrich, or goat who provided that leather wasn't killed any more humanely than any other animal.
> 
> So please, spare me the 'people are cruel and don't care' speech. Sure, some folks _are_ uncaring, neglectful, and abusive, but to tar everyone with the same brush just because they don't have your particular outlook is wrong, bigoted, and extremely narrow minded.


OMG Speed Racer you just took the words right out of my mouth about the fact that they are livestock just like most other animals out there and I thanks you!


----------



## Speed Racer

Savvy, if more people treated horses as livestock instead of hairy, 4-legged children, maybe we wouldn't have this ridiculous disconnect that so many folks seem to have in regard to them.

They're LIVESTOCK, people! They're not 'better' or 'more special' than the cow who gave its life for the steaks you have sitting in your freezer.

If people were required to raise and care for their own food animals, maybe they'd understand better how the cycle of life works. As it is, we have all these folks who have grown up in cities or suburbia who think that country life is idyllic, and all the meat animals just _somehow_ get turned into food without any ickiness or blood.

Plus, folks want cheap, abundant, generic food. They wouldn't want or maybe even be _able_ to pay the exorbitant prices things would _really_ cost if we went back to the small, private family farms. 

They'd also grumble because the quality and flavor would vary from farm to farm and region to region, since factory farming is what makes everything look, smell, and taste the same regardless of what part of the country in which they live.


----------



## savvylover112

Yes as you said Speed Racer they are livestock does this mean I would send my horses to slaughter NO why because they have a home there is no need for them to go and because they were not bred for slaughter some were if I had a pet pig or cow I would not send either of them to slaughter but they are livestock and would not be mad that cows and pigs are slaughtered daily.


----------



## Powerstroke

Dont get me wrong, i am all for slaughter. I am talking about the "people" who do not care for their horses. My point was if they dont care enough to take care of them they arent going to care enough to pay 300 to put the animal down. IMO a horse is no different from a cow or a chicken, i agree they are livestock. They are used for human and other animal consumption and i see nothing wrong with that. I wouldnt send my "pet" to slaughter. But wev already gone threw the whole "pet" thing on this thred. SR i agree with everything youv said. I should have worded my last post differently.


----------



## kevinshorses

Speed Racer said:


> Savvy, if more people treated horses as livestock instead of hairy, 4-legged children, maybe we wouldn't have this ridiculous disconnect that so many folks seem to have in regard to them.
> 
> They're LIVESTOCK, people! They're not 'better' or 'more special' than the cow who gave its life for the steaks you have sitting in your freezer.
> 
> If people were required to raise and care for their own food animals, maybe they'd understand better how the cycle of life works. As it is, we have all these folks who have grown up in cities or suburbia who think that country life is idyllic, and all the meat animals just _somehow_ get turned into food without any ickiness or blood.
> 
> Plus, folks want cheap, abundant, generic food. They wouldn't want or maybe even be _able_ to pay the exorbitant prices things would _really_ cost if we went back to the small, private family farms.
> 
> They'd also grumble because the quality and flavor would vary from farm to farm and region to region, since factory farming is what makes everything look, smell, and taste the same regardless of what part of the country in which they live.


 
Not to mention that the EVIL factory farms provide livable wages, 401Ks and health insurance that is lacking from smaller privately owned farms. The living conditions on factory farms may not look as pretty but the animals are just as content and happy or they couldn't be raised that way for profit.


----------



## Snapple122

I do agree with your points on horse slaughter. If we didn't have all these barkyard breeders, maybe horse slaughter wouldn't be nessesary. 
What I do not agree on though, is your comparison of horses to cows. Yes, horses are defined as livestock, but cattle are* raised* for human consumption. Horses are generally not raised for that purpose.


----------



## savvylover112

Snapple122 said:


> I do agree with your points on horse slaughter. If we didn't have all these barkyard breeders, maybe horse slaughter wouldn't be nessesary.
> What I do not agree on though, is your comparison of horses to cows. Yes, horses are defined as livestock, but cattle are* raised* for human consumption. Horses are generally not raised for that purpose.


In some countries they are though so that is why they are considered livestock because they used to be eaten in a lot of places like hundreds of years ago.


----------



## maura

Crispy, 



> and rendering still are options, [/quote}
> 
> What, exactly, do you think "rendering" is?
> 
> Rendering is slaughter, they're one in the same. Calling the rendering truck, or the knackers, is exactly the same as sending a horse to slaughter; the only difference is *where* the horse dies, not how the horse dies or how the body is used.
> 
> And in answer to another earlier post, currently the BLM is housing and feeding 30,000 mustangs at tax payer expense. That's right, 30,000. Anybody want to put their hand up to find homes for them?
> 
> In my part of the US, horses are routinely abandoned/turned loose at state parks and wildlife refuges, and at livestock auctions - people just drive away and leave the horses in the pens after giving the auctioneer phony info. The rescues are full to overflowing.
> 
> It's also time to stop putting all the blame on backyard breeders - the racing industry and show breeders are equally to blame. Slow and/or retired racehorses are viewed as a disposable commondity, as are show horses that no longer make the grade.
> 
> Let me be very clear - I'm not "pro-slaughter"; I just don't see any other reasonable solution, and I don't believe any reasonable, rational person who understands the entire scope of the problem has either.
> 
> And this whole "I don't view horses as livestock" thing is silly. It doesn't matter what any individual pet owner thinks; a lot of the folks who are contributing to the problem (breeders, the BLM) *DO VIEW HORSES AS LIVESTOCK*. Hence the problem.
> 
> Try my exercise above, with the auction and the truckload of rescue horses, and get back to me.


----------



## Speed Racer

Powerstroke said:


> SR i agree with everything youv said. I should have worded my last post differently.


Thank you for clearing that up, Powerstroke.

I apologize if I came off harshly, it's just that the people who anthropomophize their animals make me want to pull out my hair.

What's _wrong_ with horses being classified as livestock? That's what they _*are*_.

For those who say horses aren't raised as meat animals so they should be exempt, does that mean the horses who _are_ raised as food are okay to be slaughtered? Although the U.S. may not breed horses with the intention of turning them into meat, other countries do.

Besides, a breeder is breeding to _sell. _Just like any livestock, the youngsters are intended to either produce more animals or be sold. Since horses are herbivores just like cattle, sheep, goats, etc., why is there such an issue with an unwanted animal of _any_ species going for food?

As I said, only those with full bellies and no worries about where they're going to lay their heads every night are the ones shrieking, having the vapors, and bemoaning the 'horrible' fate of horses being turned into food. When people are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads and feed their families, horses going to slaughter don't even register on their importance scale.

What about the Hindus? To them, cattle are sacred and should _never_ be eaten. So why shouldn't they try to get a worldwide ban on eating cow meat? After all, it's offensive morally and spiritually to them that someone is eating cattle. How dare we be so insensitive!!!


----------



## maura

Speed Racer,

Please allow me to say that I throughly enjoy your plain spoken, no-nonsense, rational, logical well thought out posts.

I think you and I should attend assertiveness training since we seem to have the same difficulty expressing ourselves on subject we feel deeply about.


----------



## Powerstroke

Speed Racer said:


> Thank you for clearing that up, Powerstroke.
> 
> I apologize if I came off harshly, it's just that the people who anthropomophize their animals make me want to pull out my hair.


Its understandable after reading my post again i realized that it could come across as a peta humping statement :lol:


----------



## vicki9

This is issue is they are not a food animal, not whether you call them livestock. We humanely euthanize non-food animals in our country.

An earlier poster said “There seemly aren't enough horse lovers/money in the world to have good homes for every horse.” 

Why is owner responsibility always dismissed? They chose to own or breed the horse and it is their responsibility to care for the horse(s). The majority of horses going to slaughter (see USDA stats) are quarter horses. If there are so many horses and not enough homes, why do they continue to bring over 135,000 horses into the population every year? And that’s only the horses that are registered each year. The 100,000 horse going to slaughter aren’t 1 horse from 100,000 owners. The majority are culls from breeders that breed and dump. If they bring a horse into the population, it is their responsibility – not the rescues and not the government. If they don’t have enough customers to buy what they are breeding, then cut back. Every industry in America has cut back on production. These aren’t “unwanted” horses, they are excess horses purposely produced. As long as they have their dumping ground, they have no reason to change.

And this BS about what to do with a 1,200 pound animal is ridiculous. That is something to consider before buying a 1,200 pound animal. Tell them to ask the responsible owners of the 800,000 horses that are euthanized or die of natural causes. Put $300 aside to humanely euthanize and dispose of your horse. If you can’t afford that, you can’t afford to own a horse. It is less than one month’s care.

Re: double deckers - upwards of 40 horses are crammed into the trucks that were designed for livestock, not horses. There was a horrific accident in my state and there were 59 horses on the truck. The accident a few months later in MO had 46. The anti-horse folks oppose even the slightest change, such as banning double deckers.

Rendering is not slaughter. Some will put the horse down but most renderers require the horse be euthanized before they pick-up the horse for rendering.


----------



## Crimsonhorse01

They did choose to take care of their responsibility. Their livestock animals were of no more use. They made the decision, which is their right, to send it to slaughter. Just like the old ewe or cow. Whats so hard to understand? I'm getting real irritated about this responsibility hoopla.
Being irrisponsible is leaving a starve in a field or dishing him out to rescue because you cant make the responsible decision.


----------



## Powerstroke

vicki9 said:


> This is issue is they are not a food animal, not whether you call them livestock. We humanely euthanize non-food animals in our country.


I know people who have euthanized their pet cows, and cows are food animals. Horses ARE food animals, in other countries they are raised for food. Its selfish for one to say "they are not food animals" just because in the USA they are not raised for human consumption. 



> And this BS about what to do with a 1,200 pound animal is ridiculous. That is something to consider before buying a 1,200 pound animal. Tell them to ask the responsible owners of the 800,000 horses that are euthanized or die of natural causes. Put $300 aside to humanely euthanize and dispose of your horse. If you can’t afford that, you can’t afford to own a horse. It is less than one month’s care.


*If people already CANNOT AFFORD to keep their horses and they are starving, etc then they either dont care enough to, or CANNOT AFFORD to pay 300.* No matter how much you cry about it, they arent going to cough up 300 either because they dont want to or they cant. Yes if they cannot afford 300 to put a horse down they shouldnt have a horse. But thats not going to stop them anyways. All this "they should do this" and "they should do that" is BS. Get over it and face reality as much as *some* people SHOULD do things or SHOULDNT they are going to.


----------



## mls

vicki9 said:


> The majority of horses going to slaughter (see USDA stats) are quarter horses.


Please link to these stats.


----------



## maura

> Rendering is not slaughter. Some will put the horse down but most renderers require the horse be euthanized before they pick-up the horse for rendering.




I don't understand the distinction you're drawing here. If I can no longer keep my backyard horse, and I call the renderers to pick him up, how is that different than slaughter or sending him to a killer sale? And if they insist I have him euthanzied first, how is that different from slaughter? The only difference I see is *where* the horse dies, not how he dies and not how the meat is used after death. 

I can completely support a ban on double decker transports. However, I suspect the use of double deckers has to do with the economics of sending horses to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. The profit on a straight tractor trailer load probably isn't enought to pay for the expense of the transport. Reopening US slaughter houses; regulating them and regulating how the animals are transported would be a good solution.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

vicki9 said:


> Rendering is not slaughter. *Some will put the horse down* but most renderers require the horse be euthanized before they pick-up the horse for rendering.


Bolding mine.

So, in your mind it is OK for a guy whose main job is a truck driver from the rendering plant to put a bullet in the horses head (because they do not use lethal injection, obviously) but someone whose main job is to do such a thing is not OK?


----------



## Snapple122

> They chose to own or breed the horse and it is their responsibility to care for the horse(s).


Yes, this is semi true. But how often is it that one person will own a horse from the day it is born to the day it dies? Not very often. And people wonder why we tell people on this forum not to breed their non-desirable horses. And I don't think its feasible to say that every single unwanted, sick, etc horse in this world is going to be put down humanely.


----------



## Speed Racer

maura said:


> Speed Racer,
> 
> Please allow me to say that I throughly enjoy your plain spoken, no-nonsense, rational, logical well thought out posts.
> 
> I think you and I should attend assertiveness training since we seem to have the same difficulty expressing ourselves on subject we feel deeply about.


Thanks, maura. I enjoy your posts, too.

And yes, we_ do_ seem to have a problem expressing ourselves don't we? It must be all that, 'women should be feminine and have no opinions other than those expressed by their fathers or husbands' stuff they drilled into us as girls! :wink: :lol:


----------



## kevinshorses

Alwaysbehind said:


> Bolding mine.
> 
> So, in your mind it is OK for a guy whose main job is a truck driver from the rendering plant to put a bullet in the horses head (because they do not use lethal injection, obviously) but someone whose main job is to do such a thing is not OK?


Killing a horse really isn't rocket science. I have done it a few times and with about 5 minutes of instruction I could teach anyone where to shoot a horse to kill it instantly. I have seen a vet screw up a euthanasia on a horse so badly that I ended up shooting the horse anyway.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

kevinshorses said:


> Killing a horse really isn't rocket science.


I totally agree. And though I have not done it, I do not need instructions. I have looked up the proper place to shoot and have it stored in my memory just in case of an emergency.

I was just making a point to someone who feels that the guy driving the rendering truck is some how more qualified to do a safe and complete job than the guy who does the captive bolt at the slaughter plant.


----------



## kevinshorses

Very true!!


----------



## vicki9

really appreciate everyone’s comments – honestly! Although we may not agree, I respect your views. Most of you seem very educated on the subject and make a lot a valid points. Nobody has all the answers but if we keep a dialog going, perhaps there is a common ground that both sides can build from. My writing style tends to be matter of fact (harsh-LOL) and last thing I want to do is offend anyone so my apologies if I came across like that.

Powerstroke, you are right on the money. They are not raised for human consumption in the US. That makes them non-food animals. They are raised for other purposes and when those purposes come to end, they don’t become food. That is a decision that must be made at birth so they are raised as a food animal and safe for human consumption. That’s why the EU is requiring tracking of the horses. Within three years they will have to have complete vet records from birth that will move with the horse from owner to owner. If not, no slaughter. I’m in agreement with everyone that there isn’t room for the amount of horses being produced right now. But just think of the room rescues will have when they are not constantly rescuing horses from KBs. Think of the extra money they’ll have by not having to paying ransom to KBs to rescue horses or having to foot huge vet bills from the cruelty and abuse the horses suffer in the slaughter pipeline. I know that not every owner/breeder is going to be responsible but why keep providing an out to them? If you knew you could keep breeding and dumping, would you change because it is the responsible thing to do?

MIS, just go to the USDA site and search. It took us hours to find it. That is probably the worst site to find information. Let me contact a few people to see if someone still has the direct link. QHs were the highest, with TBs next and I think third was Paints. It didn’t quite fall in line with the breed registry counts because Paints have higher breed counts than TBs. 

Maura, most renderers require the horse be dead before they pick it up. Not many renderers will actually kill the horse. You can’t ever make horse slaughter humane. To do that, you have to restrain the horse’s head and that will slow down the lines and slowing down the lines means lost revenue. The solution is to take care of the horse as you do with any non food animal. 

Alwaysbehind, if you view the footage from the recent investigation from the top two plants in Canada, you’ll see why firearms in mass slaughter are not humane. Big difference from a renderer and a slaughter plant. You get what you pay for. Pay to have the animal put down and it’s humane. Get paid to send the horse to slaughter and as the director of Natural Valley meats in Canada said in our interview, it is the worst 4 minutes of a horse’s life. They were owned by Velda who was also the owner of Cavel, in IL. The Canadian government shut them down for humane and food safety violations and they still haven’t cleaned up the environmental mess left behind. BTW-they were $42M in debt when they closed. It was originally supposed to be for livestock slaughter and the director said they knew it was over when they started slaughtering horses.


----------



## roro

^ was just going to mention that Canadian footage. I am against slaughter for the same reasons you are, so I shan't need to repeat them. Horses are non-food animals in the USA and deserve euthanization just like any other pet we own.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

I believe it is MLS, not MIS, just a FYI.


One inept person does not make them all bad apples. Do you, vicki, not realize that chemical euthanasia can be a very not pretty end too? Post on any BB and ask and you will hear stories.

Shooting is a VERY humane way to put down an animal. It is even accepted to be humane by AAEP.


----------



## themacpack

Chemical euthanasia is not the pleasant passing so many believe it to be. The reason it seems pleasant is that the first drug used minimizes the second injections outward effects - but the internal effects are every bit as violent/painful to the animal. The outward appearance of a chemical euthanasia have been made pretty to make people feel better and believe that the animal in question had a "peaceful" death.


----------



## savvylover112

Humane means better for the animal so I would agree that a bullet wouldbe best it is a quick and painless job it is over quickly for the horse instead of waiting for a chemical to go the whole way around the horses body to shut down its organs and bodily functions.


----------



## horsecrazygirl96

*Pro and Con Argument: Slaughter*

Issue One: Humane Slaughter
Pros: Proponents of slaughter argue that it is done humanely. A pneumatic device shoots a stream of air or a retractable bolt into the animal's brain, rendering it unconscious, before the throat is cut. The American Veterinarian Medical Association (AVMA) a supporter of horse slaughter, contradicts itself in its public thesis on humane euthanasia.

Cons: Undercover films have been made showing the actual slaughter process. A very graphic series of photos showing this process is available here. Fair warning - the photos show a far different story than the AVMA or most supporters of slaughter would like you to believe.
In a sworn statement before Cook County, State of Illinois, a former employee [name withheld] of Cavel International, a horse slaughtering plant now closed but owned by the same company as Beltex and Dallas Crown, testified the following:
"In July 1991, they were unloading one of the double-decker trucks. A horse got his leg caught in the side of the truck so the driver pulled the rig up and and the horse's leg popped off. The horse was still living, and it was shaking. [Another employee] popped it on the head and we hung it up and split it open. ... Sometimes we would kill near 390, 370 a day. Each double-decker might have up to 100 on it. We would pull off the dead ones with chains. Ones that were down on the truck, we would drag them off with chains and maybe put them in a pen or we might drag them with an automatic chain to the knockbox. Sometimes we would use an electric shocker to try to make them stand. To get them into the knockbox, you have to shock them ... sometimes run them up the [anus] with the shocker. ... When we killed a pregnant mare, we would take the guts out and I would take the bag out and open it and cut the cord and put it in the trash and sometimes the baby would still be living, and its heart would be beating, but we would put it in the trashcan."
Issue Two: Provides Disposal For Unwanted Horses For Poor People
Pros: The Ft. Worth Star Telegram states, "Proponents also argue that humane slaughter is the best option for horse owners who can't afford to have a horse euthanized and then have its carcass hauled away or cremated."

Cons: The Society for Animal Protective Legislation states, "Pet horses, workhorses, thoroughbreds, Premarine© foals (who are a byproduct of the female hormone replacement drug industry), old and unwanted horses, horses purchased under false pretences and federally protected wild horses go to slaughter. Most arrive at the slaughterhouse via livestock auctions where, often unknown to the seller, they are bought by middlemen working for the slaughter plants."

Issue Three: Closing of the Slaughterhouses Will Bring Economic Disaster To The Industry
Pros: Beltex and Dallas Crown employ approximately 200 people. Both locations are foreign-owned, thus adding only a tax base to two counties in Texas. The slaughter industry supports "killer-buyers" who visit auctions to purchase horses for delivery to slaughter. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. horse export sales have fluctuated between $30 million and $41 million annually since 1997.

Cons: Horses, if not sent to slaughter, would be either absorbed into the industry or euthanazied. Currently, horses have a total impact on the US Gross Domestic Product of $112.1 BILLION, including $25.3 Billion direct and 86.8 Billion indirect, according to the American Horse Council. Should slaughterhouses close, the rendering industry would have a strong economic reason to start processing horses again, thus providing more jobs throughout the US, not just in Texas.

HoofPac states that "Horse meat constitutes only .001% of the total red meat, pork and poultry business nationally."

Fact: The positive national economic impact of retaining live horses is far greater than the negative impact felt by the closing of two slaughter plants in Texas.

Issue Four: Only Sick, Old and Injured Horses Are Sent To Slaughter.
Pros: An argument often presented by those in favor of slaughter. This statement is not presented in the media.

Cons: Tom Pogacnik, director of the BLM's $16-million-a-year Wild Horse and Burro Program, conceded that about 90% of the horses rounded up go to slaughter. John Hettinger, owner of Fasig Tipton (the second largest Thoroughbred Auction House), Chairman of the Grayson Jockey Club Foundation, member of the Board of Directors of The Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation and NY Racing Association Trustee states that between 7,000 to 9,000 Thoroughbred racehorses are slaughtered every year.
Issue Five: Horses Will Be Left Starving To Death
Pros: Another argument used by slaughter supporters.

Cons: Each state has strong and enforceable anti-cruelty laws that are designed to stop irresponsible owners who desire to starve and abuse their animals.

Fact: Weak and selective law enforcement promotes animal cruelty. No law will solve the problem of irresponsible behavior, but laws can punish those who starve their horses if law enforcement decides to take action rather than turn their back to a situation.

Issue Six: There's No Place For All The Horses
Pros: "These are useless horses that no one wants. How else are you going to get rid of them?" From an email sent to the author.

Cons: In 1999 there were a total of 5.32 million horses in the Unites States, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Current estimates place that figure at around 6.5 million in 2002. At 5.32 million, the 56,600 slaughtered in the US in 2001 represent ONE PERCENT of the current population. The amount slaughtered in 2002, 56,600, is down from 130,000 in 1996 and 345,000 in 1990, according to the United States Animal Health Association. Those horses have been absorbed into the current population.

A large number of equine rescues, clubs, riding associations, equine therapy facilities, retirement farms and other nonprofit organizations are more than capable of handling healthy horses or those with curable health problems. For more information see "What Do You Do When You Can No Longer Keep Your Horse?"

Fact: The overflow can be handled. Responsible breeding and management of horses, combined with the efforts of rescue and adoption agencies, are providing the answer to this issue.

Issue Seven: Large Cats at Zoos Need Horsemeat to Stay Healthy
Pros: Several reporters have made this statement in their articles on horse slaughter. The origin of this idea is thought to be the slaughter plants themselves. According to the suit recently filed by the slaughterhouses, "... most parts of the horse carcass can be sold for other purposes, including baseball covers, shoes, leather products, pharmaceuticals used in open heart surgery, violin bows, pet food, fertilizer, and to feed zoo animals, some of which are endangered species dependent on horsemeat."

Cons: According to the Humane Society of the United States, who recently conducted a survey of nationally recognized zoos, horse meat is not the preferred choice for large cats. Beef, goats and pigs do just as well.

Issue Eight: The people who oppose the slaughter of horses should also oppose the slaughter of other animals.
Pros: The anti-slaughter people aren't being honest with themselves. If they oppose horse slaughter, then what about the cows and pigs and chickens? They have feelings, too. And the slaughter is just as inhumane.

Cons: It is just as inhumane. The slaughter industry in the United States is beginning to come under attack for this very reason. However, this argument relates to horses and for that I'll give a specific answer. To quote one of our members. "Horses are not raised for consumption. They are bred and raised for companionship, showmanship, horseracing or for therapy. Horses are lucky to enjoy the status of being a magnificent creature without equal. Horses have a long history of being war time heroes and royal gifts of kings. There is seldom a statue of a hero without their horse in this country. They also stand for speed, wind and freedom. Humans love and honor to horses is displayed throughout this country. Pictures of horses are placed on license plates (Wyoming, Texas, etc) and cars are named after them (Mustang for example). The magic or the horse is without competition and as humans, we are only betraying ourselves if we treat this animal that we have created to be such a conqueror of hearts as all this would mean nothing."

Issue Nine: Animal Right Activist Are Causing All The Problems
Pros: The Dallas Observer quotes Brent Heberlein, a consultant and past general manager of Beltex Corp., a Fort Worth slaughterhouse that ranks as the nation's largest, says, "We're in for a fight. They'll try to go state to state and pass these sorts of laws. These are radical animal-rights activists. What do they call it out there? The land of fruits and nuts." Dan Piller of the Ft Worth Star-Telegram says, in a September 27, 2002 article, "Animal rights activists have for years complained about the activities at the Beltex plant in north Fort Worth, which employs about 100 workers, and have used Chapter 149 as a legal point."

Cons: "Activist", according to the Webster's Dictionary, is "a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue." "Welfare" is defined as, "aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need."


----------



## Speed Racer

What anti slaughter website did you cut and paste _that_ from, Crazy?

It's so full of half truths and misinformation it's actually laughable.

I LOVE this ridiculous quote: _The overflow can be handled. Responsible breeding and management of horses, combined with the efforts of rescue and adoption agencies, are providing the answer to this issue._

Baahaahaaa!!! Um no, they're NOT 'providing the answer to this issue'. 

Seriously, where have _you_ been the last 7 or 8 years? Rescues and adoption agencies are overflowing with unadoptable horses, and more are being turned away _every day_.

Horses are being _abandoned_ and left to starve to death, as are other pets. 

Rescues are going under daily, because the donations have dried up and they can't afford to continue to care for the animals. So instead of being a haven for all the unwanteds, the animals are just dumped back into the mainstream.

Yeah, I can see how_* well*_ the overflow is being handled, and all unwanted animals are finding kind, loving owners. 

As long as we're fantasizing, I'd like to be 25 y/o, blonde, and rich beyond my wildest imaginings. Since that's as believable as everything you cut and pasted!

Next time you want to enter a discussion I suggest posting your _own_ opinions, not regurgitating some anti slaughter website drivel.


----------



## kevinshorses

Speed Racer said:


> As long as we're fantasizing, I'd like to be 25 y/o, blonde, and rich beyond my wildest imaginings. Since that's as believable as everything you cut and pasted!


That's funny because when I am fantasizing you're a rich, 25yo blonde!


----------



## kevinshorses

horsecrazygirl96 said:


> Cons: Tom Pogacnik, director of the BLM's $16-million-a-year Wild Horse and Burro Program, conceded that about 90% of the horses rounded up go to slaughter.
> The truth is that it is exactly 0% of the horses rounded up that have ever gone to slaughter.
> 
> 
> Cons: In 1999 there were a total of 5.32 million horses in the Unites States, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Current estimates place that figure at around 6.5 million in 2002. At 5.32 million, the 56,600 slaughtered in the US in 2001 represent ONE PERCENT of the current population. The amount slaughtered in 2002, 56,600, is down from 130,000 in 1996 and 345,000 in 1990, according to the United States Animal Health Association. Those horses have been absorbed into the current population.
> 
> They have been absorbed which is what is causing the problems. There are now 10 million horses and there is no where for them to go.
> 
> Cons: According to the Humane Society of the United States, who recently conducted a survey of nationally recognized zoos, horse meat is not the preferred choice for large cats. Beef, goats and pigs do just as well.
> 
> I have spoken personally with the large cat caretakers at a large zoo and they would love to have horsemeat and take any that is donated happily.
> 
> Cons: It is just as inhumane. The slaughter industry in the United States is beginning to come under attack for this very reason.
> 
> It is not inhumane at all. It is as kind as any activity can be that ends in the death of the animal.
> 
> Issue Nine: Animal Right Activist Are Causing All The Problems
> 
> THIS is the only true statement in the entire post.


My comments are in Red.


----------



## Speed Racer

kevinshorses said:


> That's funny because when I am fantasizing you're a rich, 25yo blonde!


Blows kisses at Kevin.


----------



## Snapple122

> Issue Nine: Animal Right Activist Are Causing All The Problems


This I agree with. Don't even get me started on PETA. They will say anything to get you to agree and join them. And they have to use naked women to draw attention to their campaign.. doesn't that speak for itself?


----------



## roro

How can you prove that animal right activists are causing ALL the problems? Some of them, certainly, but ALL? That's ludicrous. It depends on the specific problem.


----------



## vicki9

Kevin, your statement that 0% of rounded up mustangs have gone to slaughter is false. We have photos of horses with BLM freeze brands that went to slaughter and horses that had freeze brands burned off their necks but obviously, we can't prove anything with those. You might also check out the Santa Anita geldings. The BLM can make the statement that they don’t send horses to slaughter truthfully but they sell to people that do. Also, after a horse has been adopted, after one year, they no longer follow the horses. 

Absorbed horses are creating the problem? Shouldn’t it have leveled when the slaughter counts went back up? If they were absorbed, why weren’t there all those crazy stories circulating of horses running loose in the streets and increased abuse? What is happening is excess horses are continuing to be produced every year. With the demand for horse meat decreasing, their irresponsible behavior can’t be swept under the carpet so easily. They only slaughter the amount they need to fill a demand, not the number of horses available. That has nothing to do with “activists”. Between the economy and increased awareness by consumers that US horses are not safe for consumption, I suspect the slaughter counts will continue to decrease. The year after the plants closed saw the second highest slaughter count since 1995. If you want to see the stats (links to data sources are provided) and analysis from 2006 to 2009 - http://www.equinewelfarealliance.org/uploads/Horse_Slaughter_Trends_2006-2009.pdf

If you think horse slaughter is humane, I suggest you pull a few FOIAs on the US plants, including the 2004 GAO study, then view the investigations from Mexico and the recent footage from the top two in Canada, Richelieu and Bouvry. Then come back and tell us how humane horse slaughter is.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

I would guess that Kevin's statement was accurate, that the BLM does not round up mustangs and send them to slaughter. Who in their right mind thinks the BLM has any obligation to make sure the people that buy (they really are buying) a horse do not send them to slaughter after they have owned them?

Vicki, are the slaughter houses OK as far as you are concerned for killing bovine and such?

Or do you only get yourself worked up over horses being killed?


----------



## roro

Alwaysbehind said:


> I would guess that Kevin's statement was accurate, that the BLM does not round up mustangs and send them to slaughter. Who in their right mind thinks the BLM has any obligation to make sure the people that buy (they really are buying) a horse do not send them to slaughter after they have owned them?
> 
> Vicki, are the slaughter houses OK as far as you are concerned for killing bovine and such?
> 
> Or do you only get yourself worked up over horses being killed?


Nice guess.

I believe the difference Vicki is trying to get at is food animal vs non-food animal. We don't slaughter other over-abundant non-food animals such as cats, dogs, people, etc, so horses shouldn't be any different. Also, the slaughterhouses that are being used for horses are not as specialized as the ones used for cattle in some areas.


----------



## wild_spot

> "In July 1991, they were unloading one of the double-decker trucks. A horse got his leg caught in the side of the truck so the driver pulled the rig up and and the horse's leg popped off. The horse was still living, and it was shaking. [Another employee] popped it on the head and we hung it up and split it open. ... Sometimes we would kill near 390, 370 a day. Each double-decker might have up to 100 on it. We would pull off the dead ones with chains. Ones that were down on the truck, we would drag them off with chains and maybe put them in a pen or we might drag them with an automatic chain to the knockbox. Sometimes we would use an electric shocker to try to make them stand. To get them into the knockbox, you have to shock them ... sometimes run them up the [anus] with the shocker. ... When we killed a pregnant mare, we would take the guts out and I would take the bag out and open it and cut the cord and put it in the trash and sometimes the baby would still be living, and its heart would be beating, but we would put it in the trashcan."


How many times does it have to be said - You CAN NOT sell stressed meat for human consumption. When an animal is stressed or fearful before death, the body releases chemicals that ruin the meat for human consumption.


----------



## Snapple122

roro said:


> Nice guess.
> 
> I believe the difference Vicki is trying to get at is food animal vs non-food animal. *We don't slaughter other over-abundant non-food animals such as cats, dogs, people, etc, so horses shouldn't be any different.* Also, the slaughterhouses that are being used for horses are not as specialized as the ones used for cattle in some areas.


Yes, and have you seen all the starving cats and dogs in the street? You go to Mexico and you see all the skin and bone dogs running around, because A)they can't afford to feed them and B)No one owns them anyway. It's not just in Mexico though. You see stray dogs and cats everywhere, all the time. Do you think they're happy and living a good life? I doubt it.


----------



## roro

Snapple122 said:


> Yes, and have you seen all the starving cats and dogs in the street? You go to Mexico and you see all the skin and bone dogs running around, because A)they can't afford to feed them and B)No one owns them anyway. It's not just in Mexico though. You see stray dogs and cats everywhere, all the time. Do you think they're happy and living a good life? I doubt it.


Some of them are happy, some of them aren't. The herds of dogs in Mexico are pretty much wild animals and should be left alone, I've seen them before myself. Strays in America are either taken to a shelter and adopted or euthanized, both of which I am fine with. Do we have stray horses running around in city streets? And for that matter, what is preventing us from slaughtering stray humans?


----------



## Marrissa

roro said:


> Some of them are happy, some of them aren't. The herds of dogs in Mexico are pretty much wild animals and should be left alone, I've seen them before myself. Strays in America are either taken to a shelter and adopted or euthanized, both of which I am fine with. Do we have stray horses running around in city streets? And for that matter, what is preventing us from slaughtering stray humans?


The fact that we are humans. We have the ability to think and rationalize.

What an idiot the shooter in the video is. There shouldn't be that many misses out of 100. A poor shot should be more like 1/200 or 1/400 not 4/100. He's at the wrong angle. They should have the shooter positioned right, a vet on scene, and someone always monitoring the shooting so that no horse has a slow death from not being noticed.

I'm all for slaughter. Could I do it myself? No. I can't imagine being responsible for one horse's death let alone several hundred a day. I do know that is it necessary though. 

Thank you those of you who pointed out how euthanasia works. I'd always thought it wasn't too rough of a way to go. I can't imagine putting a bullet in my boys head but if it had to be done I'd have to have someone knowledgeable to do it so that'd he go instantly.


----------



## vicki9

Snapple122, you cannot compare the dog and cat population to the horse population. You have dogs and cats that live in the street. When they reproduce they have litters, not one puppy or kitten. Horses, with rare exception, are purposely bred and have one foal per year. Big difference. As long as you have one breed that alone is bringing over 135,000 horses into the population every year, the problem will continue. Slaughter isn’t fixing it. It perpetuates it. Why should anyone breed responsibly when slaughter provides a dumping ground to cull their mistakes? Then you have legislators like Niceley saying slaughter controls the population. If it controlled the population, why are there excess horses every year? Okay, this year it’s the economy. What about the previous 20 years? 

Cavel was a state-of-the-art facility. We have pages and pages of the humane violations not to mention the waste water fines. The bolt was designed to stun cattle and does not work on horses. And as you see from Canada, the rifle doesn’t work in mass slaughter, either. 

Livestock slaughter has nothing to do with ending horse slaughter. Right or wrong, beef is an accepted food source in our country. Horses are not food animals in our country and we do not slaughter non-food animals.

You can keep making excuses and ignore the FOIAs, investigations, and testimony but you can’t ignore the drug issue or the fact the EU and consumers of horse meat have recognized our horses are not safe for consumption. It is mind boggling that anyone that has seen the abuse and cruelty inherent in every step of the slaughter pipeline from auction to slaughter could support it. Mass slaughter of horses has never and will never be humane. So make excuses and continue to punish the horses because the humans that own them won’t address the issue.


----------



## yukontanya

Thats hard to write for! I think a better topic would be more humane treatment and handling of horses or for that fact all animals sent to slaughter houses. If you banned horse slaughter there would be millions of horses that would die of starvation and illness or lameness. I believe in slaughter as a means to manage the problem of excess animals, but I totally against the treatment of these poor animals. 

Also if you want to stop the slaughter you need to shut down all race tracks and many many breeders, and many people who make a living competing. Many people view horses as a way to make a profit be it through there speed, talent, use or showing. They are a tool that when it cant do it job anymore they are tossed away. 

Being a working cowgirl I agree with this point of view if my horse cant do its job I would not own it. And in fact have helped my dad put down horses hit by cars, I did not own then and if just goes to show that a major problem is irresponsible owners. 

There needs to be a balance of use and need for the animal, be it as a tool, friend or meat source and over breeding needs to stop (the racing industry is a big factor). But no matter there use they need to be respected and given the best possible life until the moment they meet death.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

roro said:


> Nice guess.
> 
> I believe the difference Vicki is trying to get at is food animal vs non-food animal. We don't slaughter other over-abundant non-food animals such as cats, dogs, people, etc, so horses shouldn't be any different.


Yes, but I am one of the people that thinks we should use the mass quantities of unwanted cats and dogs as a food source. There are societies that each cat and dog and it seems like a horrible waste that so much perfectly good meat is wasted. 

And horses are a food animal. Not to you. But to others. There are even people here in the US that like eating horse. It is a food animal no matter how much you want to say it is not.


----------



## Lis

Somehow the debate seems to have gotten back to horse slaughter in the States when the thread is about horse slaughter worldwide. I've not noticed any of the anti slaughters offer up another viable food source for the people who depends on horse meat. If horse slaughter was banned world wide a lot of horses would suffer because the people who depend on horse meat can't afford a vet to come out and put the animal to sleep. I think it was Kevinshorses who posted something really sensible which was slaughter all the surplus horses and send the meat to Africa.


----------



## vicki9

Lis, I’m not sure what you are getting at. Ending the slaughter of US horses isn’t going to impact the world. Exports were down 20% last year in Canada and 19% in Mexico from a combination of the economy and increased awareness that US horses are not safe for human consumption. One of the largest consumers is looking at a ban on horse slaughter and the sale of horse meat. 

Countries that consume horse meat do not depend on US horses as a food source. They have their own supply. Our horses are not feeding the hungry. They are a luxury that sells for $20-$40 per pound. The Velda’s and Chevideco’s that buy our horses are not going to sell to the countries in need of food. They are making millions. No country could afford the export costs to make the meat affordable. It would be the same if we started importing beef. To be economical, it must be bred and raised in-country.

There will never be a worldwide ban on horse slaughter the same as there would never be a worldwide ban on livestock slaughter. Nobody in another country is going to tell us that we can’t eat beef and we are not going to tell other countries that they can’t eat horse meat. It is none of our business. But it is our business to remove OUR horses from their menus just as they can remove any food source from third party countries.


----------



## Lis

This topic is about worldwide slaughter and hasn't gotten back to just being exclusive to the States, yes I know imported horse meat for them would be too expensive but if we're going to have a debate we may as well keep on topic considering there are loads of threads about US slaughter.


----------



## vicki9

My post above your response was regarding a worldwide ban. Horse meat is not a main food source in any country that I am aware of. As I mentioned, one of the largest consumers is looking at a ban now.

Given it's not a main food source, what comments are you looking for? I would suspect whatever other food sources are in the country would increase to absorb the loss of horse meat. A worldwide ban wouldn't have any impact on the US food sources other than perhaps the few zoos that still feed horse meat.

There is no data to support an increase in neglect with a ban on horse slaughter. Countries that have horse slaughter, such as Canada have seen a significant rise in neglect. Same with the US as slaughter is still available. Neglect rises and falls with the unemployment rate, not the availability of slaughter.


----------



## shmurmer4

Err, who said something about "stressed" meat not being good for humans? I don't feel like going to find it... but it is 100% incorrect. The only problem with the meat is it MAY spoil faster than "unstressed" meat. And even then, the chances of that happening are slim to none. Oh and i'll cite my source... Purdue University 

Poor horse gets a little bit of lactic acid!! aww.

Now if you want to talk about the bacteria, that's another thing but entirely preventable.


----------



## kevinshorses

vicki9 said:


> But it is our business to remove OUR horses from their menus just as they can remove any food source from third party countries.


So why don't YOU remove YOUR horses from the food chain and leave ME and MY horse alone. Nobody is forcing you to sell your horses for any reason but my horses are my property and I should be able to do with them what I want.


----------



## vicki9

Nice try, Kevin but the property rights argument is an old one that most slaughter proponents no longer use. You must not have received the new list of talking points, yet. You can’t do whatever you want with your property. You can’t leave your car abandoned on a street. You have laws on how to treat hazardous waste, appliances, horse disposal in some areas, etc. You can’t burn down your house. Your child is your property until he/she reaches 18. So you see, there are consequences for doing whatever you want with your property, especially if what you want to do is hazardous to other humans. 

The consumers of the horse meat, the EU, welfare advocates, the government and anyone concerned with horse welfare has every right to end a cruel, abusive business that is putting human life at risk and violating humane treatment of animals.


----------



## Hoofprints in the Sand

Alright I know I'm going to be eaten alive in this forum for this comment lol but here goes anyway! ;-) 

I'm on the fence about the slaughter argument, but just to play Devil's Advocate here...

For those of you who believe slaughter is humane and acceptable, for owners who can no longer afford their horse -- do you also believe that abortion is acceptable for people who can't afford their children, rather than adoption?

There are about 170k unwanted horses each year, most of which end up going to slaughter. There are 130k children waiting to be adopted.


----------



## Juniper

I have been told by a person working in the welfare system that she used to be anti abortion. After seeing so much suffering in children she told me that their souls are being murdered slowly and that is more cruel than the quick murder of abortion. So, hoofprints in the sand, some people have made the analogy of the philosophy of the situation to people as well as animals.


----------



## Hoofprints in the Sand

Thank you and that's very interesting Juniper, and certainly not the reaction I thought I was going to get!! Is anyone who is pro slaughter willing to share his/her opinion on the above subject?


----------



## kevinshorses

vicki9 said:


> Nice try, Kevin but the property rights argument is an old one that most slaughter proponents no longer use. You must not have received the new list of talking points, yet. You can’t do whatever you want with your property. You can’t leave your car abandoned on a street. You have laws on how to treat hazardous waste, appliances, horse disposal in some areas, etc. You can’t burn down your house. Your child is your property until he/she reaches 18. So you see, there are consequences for doing whatever you want with your property, especially if what you want to do is hazardous to other humans.
> 
> The consumers of the horse meat, the EU, welfare advocates, the government and anyone concerned with horse welfare has every right to end a cruel, abusive business that is putting human life at risk and violating humane treatment of animals.


I don't recieve talking points from anyone nor do I recieve all my information from biased, youtube "investigations". You are right about regulations on the disposal of certain types of private property. The slaughter process is at least as humane as euthanasia and disposes of the body in a much more productive way that is healthier and safer for the enviroment.


----------



## kevinshorses

Hoofprints in the Sand said:


> Thank you and that's very interesting Juniper, and certainly not the reaction I thought I was going to get!! Is anyone who is pro slaughter willing to share his/her opinion on the above subject?


I think it is a ridiculous argument for either side to use. I belive in the supremecy of humans. We are better than animals so there is no parellel to draw between unwanted children and unwanted horses. I am absolutely behind horse slaughter but I would give my life to protect any child.


----------



## Hoofprints in the Sand

kevinshorses said:


> I think it is a ridiculous argument for either side to use. I belive in the supremecy of humans. We are better than animals so there is no parellel to draw between unwanted children and unwanted horses. I am absolutely behind horse slaughter but I would give my life to protect any child.


Man, I'd hate to be one of your horses ;-) I, for one, believe that ALL of God's creatures should be cared for and loved the same, we are no better than anyone or anything else. That goes for horses too...if you see them as "property" to be "discarded" when you're through with it, then maybe you shouldn't own one...I think the LEAST you can do when you take on that kind of responsibility is to find a good home for it if you can no longer care for it. I don't agree with anyone who just decides that they're too lazy to try so they just take it to slaughter the next day without another thought.


----------



## Juniper

I am staying out of that debate. Not saying my opinion one way or the other because this is about horses. I do feel bad for the people who work so hard in the social services system and hit burn out so I would never judge my friend for her opinions. I do think everyone should "walk a mile in someone else's shoes" or, in other words, really educate yourself to the realities before formulating opinions. Go see slaughter houses in the works, see horses transported to Mexico, watch a vet euthanasia, etc.


----------



## Sissimut-icehestar

Hoofprints in the Sand said:


> Man, I'd hate to be one of your horses ;-) I, for one, believe that ALL of God's creatures should be cared for and loved the same, we are no better than anyone or anything else. That goes for horses too...if you see them as "property" to be "discarded" when you're through with it, then maybe you shouldn't own one...I think the LEAST you can do when you take on that kind of responsibility is to find a good home for it if you can no longer care for it. I don't agree with anyone who just decides that they're too lazy to try so they just take it to slaughter the next day without another thought.


I don't think that's neccissarily what he is saying. From what I've read of his posts his horses are well cared for. Humane slaughter is not a bad way to go. I myself think it would be rather nice to just go inside a room and be shot in the head. And I couldn't care less about if someone eats me afterwards.

And I do place humans higher than horses, they are my own species after all. I do not support any kind of abuse or mistreatment to horses or anything else in that matter but if I were to either save a horse's life or a human's life I'd pick the human any day.


----------



## Crimsonhorse01

Sissimut-icehestar said:


> I don't think that's neccissarily what he is saying. From what I've read of his posts his horses are well cared for. Humane slaughter is not a bad way to go. I myself think it would be rather nice to just go inside a room and be shot in the head. And I couldn't care less about if someone eats me afterwards.
> 
> And I do place humans higher than horses, they are my own species after all. I do not support any kind of abuse or mistreatment to horses or anything else in that matter but if I were to either save a horse's life or a human's life I'd pick the human any day.


Took the words right out of my mouth!


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Sissimut-icehestar said:


> I don't think that's neccissarily what he is saying. From what I've read of his posts his horses are well cared for. Humane slaughter is not a bad way to go. I myself think it would be rather nice to just go inside a room and be shot in the head. And I couldn't care less about if someone eats me afterwards.
> 
> And I do place humans higher than horses, they are my own species after all. I do not support any kind of abuse or mistreatment to horses or anything else in that matter but if I were to either save a horse's life or a human's life I'd pick the human any day.



Well said.

Human abortion and equine slaughter is not even comparing apples and oranges. It is comparing apples to a hammer. Geez.

For the record, I am in general against human abortion, but I see nothing wrong with a mid term spay for an animal (so aborting baby animals).

Humans have a mind that lets them consider the results of what they are doing, animals reproduction is only done on instinct. 

But really it has nothing to do with slaughter.

Like we have been saying all along, humane slaughter is no different than euthanasia except it gives the ability to not waste a good resource.


----------



## kevinshorses

Hoofprints in the Sand said:


> Man, I'd hate to be one of your horses ;-) I, for one, believe that ALL of God's creatures should be cared for and loved the same, we are no better than anyone or anything else. That goes for horses too...if you see them as "property" to be "discarded" when you're through with it, then maybe you shouldn't own one...I think the LEAST you can do when you take on that kind of responsibility is to find a good home for it if you can no longer care for it. I don't agree with anyone who just decides that they're too lazy to try so they just take it to slaughter the next day without another thought.


I take good care of all my animals and I work to limit any suffering at the end stages of thier lives but I do not hold my dog in the same esteem that I hold my wife and kids. I do not love every animal the same. I readily kill pests such as mice and rats and even the occasional stray dog if it makes a nuisance of itself. I use my horses untill they are no longer useful to me then I decide what to do about them from there. I may sell them to someone that has different requirements of a horse or they may stay in my pasture untill such time that they need to be put down. If there was a slaughter option that did not require them to be shipped long distances and taken out of the country then I would consider that as well. The USDA approved slaughter methods used in this country are quick and humane and I would have no problem with having a horse killed in that way and used for meat.


----------



## Speed Racer

Hoofprints, I have several questions. 

Are you a vegan? I mean a _total_ vegan who eats no animal protein whatsoever, including milk and eggs?

Do you ride your horse(s)? Do you use leather tack if you do ride?

If you're not a total vegan and _abuse_ your horse by making it carry a predator on its back, or force it to perform for your enjoyment, you certainly aren't showing much respect for God's creatures by eating and using them for your own selfish reasons.

How can you say that all God's creatures are equal, and yet demean an animal by using it for your own amusement and entertainment?

If you eat/use/wear animals and their skins, you support the slaughter industry. Which makes you pro slaughter.

According to your own words ALL animals should be treated the same, so if livestock can be killed and consumed and their hides used to make leather, then horses cannot be exempt by that very notion of fairness you purport to put forth.

And just so you know, my animals are very well taken care of and each of them is loved dearly. It's only the antis who think that someone can't _possibly_ love animals if they see no problem with slaughter. I find that way of thinking insulting.


----------



## vicki9

Kevin, from your comment I am guessing you haven’t pulled any FOIAs or read/viewed the mounds of investigations that dispute your comment.

BTW-Did you read the bombshell Europe dropped with the latest report? Major grocers in Belgium and Holland have told their suppliers to only accept European horses. Three major news stations carried the report released by GAIA in partnership with Animals’ Angels. Major news outlets across Europe have picked-up the report. Consumers are furious with the lies they’ve been fed. 

It was only a matter of time before the consumers found out the truth behind what they’ve been eating contrary to what the importers have portrayed. 

Our press release will be out later tonight.


----------



## wild_spot

> if you see them as "property" to be "discarded" when you're through with it, then maybe you shouldn't own one...


This is a bit of a contradiction - If you own something, it IS property and you have every right to discard it if you so choose.

I love my horses - I love all animals. I don't squish spiders and I hate stepping on ants or snails by accident :[

I don't think I would send my own horse to slaughter - But I don't have a problem with other people doing it if they so choose. Slaughter houses and knackeries are alive and well in Australia and yet we don't have the issues around inhumane treatment the US and Canada seem to. It isn't such a taboo thing here.


----------



## Hoofprints in the Sand

wow now THIS is interesting entertainment!  how about we all agree to disagree because arguing is going to change no ones minds here. I have my beliefs and some agree with me and some do not and I think that's how this particular topic will always be! 

On the bright side, I think we've all given the OP lots of material for her paper!! 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## momoncoffee

I have actually thought about this for a few days before responding, as I just rescued a horse from slaughter. I am not a "bleeding heart", I do understand that humans need to eat and that some of the sources of nutrition are unlikely sources. However, my problem with horse slaughter is this. We all know how smart and loving our horses can be. Horses in the US are not bred to be food sources, they are bred to work, be pets, be part of a family. Would you send your dog to slaughter after you had used him or her up? I would not, but that is just my opinion.

I think that animals who are bred to be food are less involved emotionally, they are left out of the bonds that many horses and humans have. I could be wrong, of course, but they certainly aren't given the time and attention that pets are. Slaughter of horses is essentially murdering pets. I just can't support it.

I do however, respect personal property. I hold no hard feelings against the previous owners of Jude or anyone who sends their horse to slaughter, but I also respect the rescues who work hard to get the horses away from slaughter whenever possible. I have a very strict policy of never buying animals, and the same policy goes for horses. I believe in giving a home to those who would otherwise be thrown away.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

momoncoffee said:


> We all know how smart and loving our horses can be.


Pigs are actually more intelligent than horses are and they are quite interactive (aka loving). 



momoncoffee said:


> Would you send your dog to slaughter after you had used him or her up?


I would not send MY horse either. But I actually think slaughter for food is a great way to use all unwanted dogs and cats we kill and have to dispose of annually here in the US.


----------



## kevinshorses

vicki9 said:


> Kevin, from your comment I am guessing you haven’t pulled any FOIAs or read/viewed the mounds of investigations that dispute your comment.
> 
> .


I haven't read any reports I have just worked in the slaughter industry for a decade or so. As far as the rest of your comment, I think it is more of a political decision having to do with protecting the european horse market rather than a food safety issue. I have a hard time believing that there are any drugs used on horses that never leave the system and contaminate the muscle. Liver and kidneys may retain some residue but the drug should be flushed out of the muscle after a withdrawl period.

Great Job on those talking points though!


----------



## spence

Hoofprints in the Sand said:


> Man, I'd hate to be one of your horses ;-) I, for one, believe that ALL of God's creatures should be cared for and loved the same, we are no better than anyone or anything else. That goes for horses too...if you see them as "property" to be "discarded" when you're through with it, then maybe you shouldn't own one...I think the LEAST you can do when you take on that kind of responsibility is to find a good home for it if you can no longer care for it. I don't agree with anyone who just decides that they're too lazy to try so they just take it to slaughter the next day without another thought.


problem is, if you mean God's creatures from a more biblical standpoint, then you're ever loving wrong. we, as humans, were created at the top, beings as we are the only creatures on the planet with the capacity to think and reason. i won't get any more philosophical with that statement to keep from being argued with.

and we do OWN our horses, so in a generalization we can do what we want with them. and here in the U.S. the definition of freedom is doing whatever i please to do as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of someone else to do as they wish.

and in response to momoncoffee, there is no way that we can be "murdering" pets by slaughtering horses. a horse does not have the ability to think or reason, hence it's not murder. killing, yes, murder, no.


----------



## Hoofprints in the Sand

spence please see my last thread 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Hoofprints in the Sand said:


> spence please see my last thread
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Can you help us, which thread? Or do you mean post?

If you mean post - You do not have to partake in the conversation if you do not want to. But I see no reason for you to jump in and tell the rest of us to stop having it.


----------



## Speed Racer

Hoofprints in the Sand said:


> wow now THIS is interesting entertainment!  how about we all agree to disagree because arguing is going to change no ones minds here.


Actually, that's not true. Neither do I think disagreeing with someone's opinion is arguing.

The OP started out as being anti slaughter, and is now convinced that it's not necessarily something that needs to be stopped.

There are also several others who have changed their opinions on slaughter, based on information set forth. 

While they might not be PRO slaughter, they're not inherently against the idea any longer. Which means that your statement about not changing anyone's mind is incorrect.

You still haven't answered my questions. They're easily understood and should be easy to answer. Either you're a meat eater/leather user, or you're not. Either you 'abuse' your horses by 'forcing' them to work for your enjoyment and amusement, or you don't.

Since in your eyes all animals are inherently equal, you should neither eat, use, wear or make them submit to you in any way, shape or form.

Or do you see it as, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?


----------



## Hoofprints in the Sand

wow you guys really like to argue don't you?  ok how about this...let me rephrase what I said before...I am not telling anyone to stop having any further conversation. What I am saying is please stop having it with me  

I respectfully retract any and all previous statements and no longer wish to be a part of this thread. So talk all you want but please stop asking me to answer your loaded questions so that you can argue with me more. I think you've made your point. Thanks everybody and to the OP I'm glad this thread has opened your eyes to both sides...that's step 1 in making an informed decision. And don't let anyone bully you into believing one side or the other.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## vicki9

Kevin, the report issued this week dealt more with the cruelty and the lies about the treatment of horses importers portray to the public. Do you work in the horse slaughter industry or the livestock slaughter industry? Big difference between the two.

Unfortunately, whether you or I think the drugs leave the system is of no consequence. Any animal that has received a prohibited substance cannot be slaughtered for human consumption. There is no withdrawal period. Those are FDA and EU rules. As an example, bute, a known carcinogen that can cause aplastic anemia (bone marrow suppression) in humans, is banned in livestock and horses. We recently released a paper that was published in the peer reviewed Food and Toxicology journal that followed race horses that were sent to slaughter. Race horses were chosen because of the availability of records. All of them had received bute. You would be hard pressed to find a horse in the US that hasn’t received bute at sometime in their life. That is just one of the numerous prohibited substances that horses are routinely given. Almost all horse meds are labeled not intended for food animals. As you know, horses don’t have any records so there is no way to certify the horses are drug free. Unlike livestock, horses can change owners frequently and without records from birth, it is virtually impossible to guarantee food safety.


----------



## kevinshorses

vicki9 said:


> Kevin, the report issued this week dealt more with the cruelty and the lies about the treatment of horses importers portray to the public. Do you work in the horse slaughter industry or the livestock slaughter industry? Big difference between the two.
> 
> Unlike livestock, horses can change owners frequently and without records from birth, it is virtually impossible to guarantee food safety.


I have worked in Livestock slaughter and seen horse slaughter operations and there is very little difference. 

Livestock change owners frequently and there are no records other than brand inspections in some states that travel with the animals. Cattle, sheep and hogs are sold at auctions just like horses. 

If there were a few more facts and a little less opinion your talking points might be more effective. Have you ever actually done any investigating or do you just read the news releases.


----------



## vicki9

Kevin, livestock cannot go to slaughter without someone signing a document that the animal is free of prohibited substances. If vet records were not kept and livestock frequently change hands, then are you saying we should all be concerned about the safety of the meat we are consuming? 

A drug paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal is not opinion. The EU and FDA rules are not opinion. The labeling on horse meds is not opinion. Mounds of evidence of the cruelty inherent in the slaughter pipeline over the past decade, is not opinion. NVM meats being shut down by the Canadian government for food safety and humane issues, is not opinion. They were owned by Velda, the same owners of the former Cavel plant in IL – who BTW were repeatedly issued violations for the same things but we had to pass a law to shut them down. Unlike the livestock industry, the meager horse slaughter regs were ignored (see FOIAs and investigations). It is not opinion that the owners of Dallas Crown still owe the city of Kaufman TX $180k in fines.

Little difference between livestock and horse slaughter? Are livestock transported in trucks designed for smaller animals? Does the livestock industry have KBs running all over town buying up cows under false pretenses? Are livestock going to slaughter with prohibited substances? Are livestock frequently stolen and sent to slaughter? Are livestock stunned with a bolt designed for another animal? Do they regain consciousness in 30 seconds? Do cattle owners send their cattle to slaughter because they were raised to provide food or because they don’t want them?

BTW-are cows going to slaughter “unwanted” cows?


----------



## Alwaysbehind

vicki9 said:


> BTW-are cows going to slaughter “unwanted” cows?


Vicki, just curious, it would be OK with you if someone was breeding horses for slaughter then?


----------



## Speed Racer

Hoofprints in the Sand said:


> I respectfully retract any and all previous statements and no longer wish to be a part of this thread. So talk all you want but please stop asking me to answer your loaded questions


Fine with me, since you had nothing to add to the thread anyway. Vicki now, although I don't agree with her opinions, I can respect because of the way she presents them.

Making sweeping, generalized pronouncements from on high, yet expecting no dissent is rather illogical, especially since a majority of us have already made it well known that we have no problem with equine slaughter.

The questions I asked weren't 'loaded'. They were perfectly reasonable requests for information. The realization that your answers might back you into a corner is the only reason you feel they were unreasonable.

I hold no ill will for anyone, but don't write a check with your mouth that your *ss can't cash.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Well said SR!



Hoofprints in the Sand said:


> ok how about this...let me rephrase what I said before...I am not telling anyone to stop having any further conversation. What I am saying is please stop having it with me


Most people who want to be done with a thread do not announce that everyone else is not playing fair so they should stop discussing it. They simply walk away from the thread and do not post any further. It is an interesting technique you have there.


----------



## kevinshorses

vicki9 said:


> Kevin, livestock cannot go to slaughter without someone signing a document that the animal is free of prohibited substances. If vet records were not kept and livestock frequently change hands, then are you saying we should all be concerned about the safety of the meat we are consuming?
> 
> A drug paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal is not opinion. The EU and FDA rules are not opinion. The labeling on horse meds is not opinion. Mounds of evidence of the cruelty inherent in the slaughter pipeline over the past decade, is not opinion. NVM meats being shut down by the Canadian government for food safety and humane issues, is not opinion. They were owned by Velda, the same owners of the former Cavel plant in IL – who BTW were repeatedly issued violations for the same things but we had to pass a law to shut them down. Unlike the livestock industry, the meager horse slaughter regs were ignored (see FOIAs and investigations). It is not opinion that the owners of Dallas Crown still owe the city of Kaufman TX $180k in fines.
> 
> Little difference between livestock and horse slaughter? Are livestock transported in trucks designed for smaller animals? Does the livestock industry have KBs running all over town buying up cows under false pretenses? Are livestock going to slaughter with prohibited substances? Are livestock frequently stolen and sent to slaughter? Are livestock stunned with a bolt designed for another animal? Do they regain consciousness in 30 seconds? Do cattle owners send their cattle to slaughter because they were raised to provide food or because they don’t want them?
> 
> BTW-are cows going to slaughter “unwanted” cows?


Livestock DO change hands and very often there are no records that ENSURE that the withdrawl periods are followed. Just because a paper is signed doesn't mean the animal is free of prohibited substances. However, I do not worry about the safety of the meat I eat.

The "mounds" of evidence of cruelty IS an opinion. People consider different things cruel and tolerate different levels of discomfort before something is considered cruel.

In many places where it is not required that cattle be branded, cattle are stolen. You can prevent horse theft just as easily as cattle theft by branding your horse.

Horses are killed by the bolt going into thier brain and then is less than 30 seconds they are hung upside down and the blood is drained out of them. When an animal has no blood and no brain activity then it is DEAD.

Many cattle sent to slaughter are cows that are old or failed to raise a calf or are unproductive in some other way. They are not wanted. 

It all comes back to personal choice. If you don't want to send your horse to slaughter then don't. If you don't want to eat horse meat then don't. Nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do but you are trying to shove your idea of what is right and moral down everybody elses throut.


----------



## vicki9

Kevin, documented evidence from the US plants, Mexican plants and Canadian plants is not opinion. It is what it is. If you don’t think it’s cruel, so be it. You can make excuses and try to convince people that they aren’t seeing what they see. It won’t change the facts. They are front and center and aren’t going away. Reports from the government, testimony and affidavits from inspectors, vets and slaughter house workers are not opinion. Scientific peer reviewed journals don’t print opinions.

Since you are well versed on the bolt, why didn’t you mention that the bolt must be firmly administered on the forehead and that there is no way to restrain horse’s heads to accomplish that? Or that the bolt was designed for livestock and that horse’s brains are set further back making the bolt ineffective on horses? Or that the study by the AVMA on the bolt was in a controlled environment with horses being secondary to livestock in the study? Or that the bolt was administered by veterinarians and was never evaluated in a mass slaughter environment? So you see, you can say how the bolt should work but when you have overwhelming evidence that it doesn’t work in mass slaughter on horses, then you have inexcusable cruelty. You are seeing the same thing in Canada with fire arms. 

And yes, it a choice to send a horse off to slaughter. A director at Natural Valley Meats said in an interview with us, it is the worst 4 minutes of a horse’s life but it is your choice. Where in my posts did I ever say horse slaughter was immoral? That and people being emotional is always the first comeback when the facts get in the way. There is more than enough proof that our horses are not safe for human consumption and it is abusive and cruel. What you keep forgetting is that the opinions of the consumers count. They are the market and are now aware that they have buying and ingesting tainted meat and are seeing what slaughter horses endure. 

I know you aren’t going to change your mind but please, don’t insult people’s intelligence by saying scientific journals, footage, affidavits and testimony are opinion or my opinion.


----------



## goldilockz

Vicki, what would be your recommended alternative for those thousands of horses? I don't mean hypothetical controlled breeding, no backyard breeders, etc. I mean right-now-short-term solution for ALL of these horses?


----------



## kevinshorses

vicki9 said:


> Reports from the government, testimony and affidavits from inspectors, vets and slaughter house workers are not opinion. That is all they are. The least reliable type of evidence is an eyewitness.
> Since you are well versed on the bolt, why didn’t you mention that the bolt must be firmly administered on the forehead and that there is no way to restrain horse’s heads to accomplish that? When you put an animal in a head restraint the animal instinctively pulls back untill the head is next to the restraint. There may be a few misses but they are not common.
> 
> And yes, it a choice to send a horse off to slaughter. A director at Natural Valley Meats said in an interview with us, it is the worst 4 minutes of a horse’s life but it is your choice. 4 minutes is better than 4 months starving to death or four years limping around on crippled legs.
> 
> I know you aren’t going to change your mind but please, don’t insult people’s intelligence by saying scientific journals, footage, affidavits and testimony are opinion or my opinion. You are very very nieve if you think that there is not a good amount of opinion in scientific journals.


My comments obviously are in red.


----------



## wild_spot

> Or that the bolt was designed for livestock and that horse’s brains are set further back making the bolt ineffective on horses?


Horses ARE livestock!


----------



## vicki9

Wild spot, would you understand better if I said the bolt was designed for cattle? Instead of addressing the issue with the bolt, you chose to ignore that and comment on semantics. 

That is all they are. The least reliable type of evidence is an eyewitness. With that logic, since you’re involved in the slaughter industry, that disqualifies the information you have been posting.

_When you put an animal in a head restraint the animal instinctively pulls back untill the head is next to the restraint. There may be a few misses but they are not common. __Horse’s heads are not restrained whatsoever so what does this comment have to do with my comments? If there are misses when heads are restrained, the misses with horses must be the horrendous. Oh, wait a minute. That’s what we’ve been saying._

_4 minutes is better than 4 months starving to death or four years limping around on crippled legs. __And why would the owner make the horse suffer for four years rather than call the vet and have the horse euthanized? So what you’re saying is if slaughter isn’t available they will commit crimes? How do you explain all the neglect you guys are whining about. Why are those owners neglecting their horses instead of sending them to slaughter? Nothing is stopping them. _

_You are very very nieve if you think that there is not a good amount of opinion in scientific journals. __That’s a good one. Respected doctors and DVMs with clear cut solid evidence with sources is opinion. Is that your opinion or do you have facts to back your statement?_


----------



## wyominggrandma

Alot of people don't call the vet to have horse euthanized because 1. they can't afford it,2 they have no place to bury the horse and there is nobody that will pick up dead horses.. Which leaves the option around Wyoming and Kevin, I am sure you will agree with this, in Utah as well of either letting their horses starve to death because they no longer want to feed an old, crippled horse, or turning them loose to live "wild" on the desert. I guess that way they figure they can let the guilt go of turning them loose because they can "live free".. The joke around the BLM is sad but true, during round up, they can just shake a bucket of grain and the "wild horses" will come running... 
I work for a vet and deal with people everyday trying to figure out what to do with old, lame or crippled horses when they can't ship them.
I have shipped some of my horses before, its not a fun thing to do, but had to be done. Now, horses are dying slow deaths and painful ones,because the "humaniacks" have stopped the slaughter of horses and people don't have property to bury them, so they just turn them loose and let them die.
We use Beuthinasia on horses that do get buried on the farms in deep holes, but if a person is having a horse put down and taken to the landfill, then we have to use a light sedative first and then use penicillian to put them down. The reasoning behind this is because at the landfill there is a chance other animals will eat the carcuss and die from the Beuthanasia . At least with slaughter they are not injected with anything.

I hope they do let slaughter houses open up again, there would be alot less horses starving to death or let go in the desert to die.


----------



## wyominggrandma

And a good majority of the videos that folks see about inhumane treatment at slaughter houses are made by PETA, and we all know what a set up those films always are.


----------



## themacpack

wild_spot said:


> Horses ARE livestock!


Where is a good "bow down to you" smiley when you need one.........


----------



## spence

vicki9 said:


> _You are very very nieve if you think that there is not a good amount of opinion in scientific journals. __That’s a good one. Respected doctors and DVMs with clear cut solid evidence with sources is opinion. Is that your opinion or do you have facts to back your statement?_


there is only one thing i have to say to you on this: there IS a lot of opinion in scientific journals. and "STUDY" can be very much swayed to the opinion of the one doing the research. or, the consumer of the study, can find evidences to support either side of a "study" on just about any topic. just as an example because i've seen the "research" on both sides is global warming/climate change. there's a LOT of "research" that "concludes" that it's happening and we're a "large" part of the "problem," and there's a whole lot of study that concludes it's a load of crap. which side you want to believe is up to you.


----------



## vicki9

Wyominggrandma, PETA is not involved in efforts to end horse slaughter.

If an owner can’t afford euthanasia, has no place to bury a horse, and doesn’t have a renderer close by, why on earth would they choose to own a horse? Isn’t that rather irresponsible?

You work for a vet and don’t know what to do with an old, lame or crippled horse? How about having that vet euthanize the horse? Anyone that would put a crippled horse through the torture of dragging him to auction and the abuse of transport and slaughter rather than humanely put him down, shouldn’t own any animals.

You are correct. With slaughter they don’t inject them with anything but that doesn’t matter because they are already have substances that are prohibited in food animals. So I take it you have no problems with consumers eating the tainted meat?


----------



## goldilockz

You just lost ALL credibility in my opinion. 



vicki9 said:


> PETA is not involved in efforts to end horse slaughter.


PETA Media Center > Factsheets


> *Historic Cases
> *PETA has been responsible for such breakthroughs as *closing the largest horse-slaughter operation in the United States*, shutting down a military laboratory where animals were shot, and stopping the use of cats and dogs in all “wound” laboratories. _The Philadelphia Daily News_ reported, “PETA has done more to lessen animal suffering than nearly any other organization.”(1)


The PETA Files | ESPN Features PETA's Undercover Investigation of Horse Slaughter in Japan

The Horse | Horse Slaughter Prevention Act Co-Author Named PETA Person of the Year


----------



## Alwaysbehind

vicki9 said:


> Wyominggrandma, PETA is not involved in efforts to end horse slaughter.


You are kidding, aren't you?





vicki9 said:


> If an owner can’t afford euthanasia, has no place to bury a horse, and doesn’t have a renderer close by, why on earth would they choose to own a horse? Isn’t that rather irresponsible?


I would have to agree with you if a person purchased their horse when that situation existed.

But I would guess that most people who are in that situation did not start there.

I only found out recently, when a some one at the barn's horse passed, that we no longer have a renderer in our area that will pick up horses. :shock: I was shocked. We used to have one but they stopped taking equines.
Now your options are cremation (crazy expensive for private), burial at a pet cemetery, or landfill.

Things change.....


----------



## wyominggrandma

PETA is involved in everything to do with ALL animals. They want all animals to be gone so NOBODY owns any, Dogs, cats, horses, cows, birds, fish. Their agenda is to stop animal ownerhsip.
What, someone doesn't have the right to own a horse? 
As I stated, it gets hard to dispose of a horse if you don't own the property to buy it. Of course we know what to do with a horse, what I said was it was getting hard for people to have places to bury them.
I never said anything about tainted meat. I was talking about the problem of slaughter houses being closed down and the problems it causes with no places to send horses.
You need to read what people write and comment on WHAT they write, not what you want it to read.


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

vicki9 said:


> If an owner can’t afford euthanasia, has no place to bury a horse, and doesn’t have a renderer close by, why on earth would they choose to own a horse? Isn’t that rather irresponsible?


I've enjoyed reading most of your responses, but this is a little ridiculous. 

It is a pain in the A** to find a renderer to come pick up a horse in my area. I live in rural MN where there are a crap load of horses. I had to call 4 or 5 vets (it was 2 yrs ago, so I'm not quite sure) to find one that had the number of a renderer as I couldn't find them anywhere. Then you have to PAY THEM to come get the body. 

My horse is 30 yrs old and my parents have been living in this area for about 15 yrs. Somehow they were supposed to know what the renderer situation was going to be like when they moved in? Or that the large animal vets close by would all switch to small animal? Or that the economy would go to **** and they wouldn't have an extra $400 to PTS and dispose of our horses? Or were they supposed to know that when they bought the horse 30 yrs ago? Or we were supposed to sell her when we found out that the renderers were next to impossible to find? 

I agree that owners need to be responsible for their animals and need to be prepared for the lifespan and expense of a horse. But there is no way to know what is going to happen in life and to say that "You shouldn't buy a horse if you can't garuntee it'll be taken care of forever" is BS. If that was the case, NO ONE would own a horse except the very rich.


----------



## Speed Racer

vicki9 said:


> Wyominggrandma, PETA is not involved in efforts to end horse slaughter.


Dear girl, I suggest you find out more about PETA if you think they're a warm and fuzzy organization that just wants everyone to live happy bunny rainbow lives. 

They're nothing more than a terrorist/propaganda group that wants to stop ALL animal 'abuse'. That 'abuse' constitutes ANY use of animals for ANY reason, not just eating and wearing them. 

PETA is nothing more than a dirty, four letter word in my opinion. :evil:

If you're for the spaying and neutering of ALL domestic animals and no breeding _ever_ of pets and livestock, then by all means support PETA and HSUS.

However, if you'd like to continue to own/use/eat animals, I suggest you research very carefully behind which groups you throw your support. It may come back to bite you _very_ hard in the behind if you don't.

I respected your arguments and opinions up to this point, but I can no longer take you seriously if you think PETA is a good organization.

I also have to wonder where and how you live that you think circumstances don't change for people, sometimes in drastic ways that couldn't be foreseen when they acquired their horses and other animals. 

Life and circumstances can change in a _millisecond_. Sure, you can make plans, but when forces outside your control happen, your plans are nothing but dust in the wind.


----------



## wyominggrandma

I agree totally with you MN Tigerstripes. Nobody plans on a horse dying or having to be euthanized. Things happen. But if we all felt the way that vicki9 feels, nobody would own them. 
I think vicki9 has her own agenda and wants to stir the pot up.


----------



## wyominggrandma

WEll said speedracer. 
Like I had pointed out, PETA wants to end all animal ownership, so nobody owns pets of anykind. HSUS is all about money for themselves, if you check into HSUS, they don't even support or have anything to do with humane societies at all, that is a front to get people to give them money. They and PETA work together.


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

Doesn't PETA also want all domestic animals to basically die out? I'm not sure about that (it's been awhile since I've looked into them).


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Yes, MNT, PETA thinks it is cruel for us to use animals in any way. That includes your dog sleeping on your couch and being fed meals and all that stuff.


----------



## themacpack

> *Historic Cases
> *PETA has been responsible for such breakthroughs as closing the largest horse-slaughter operation in the United States,


From PETA's own website


----------



## Speed Racer

MN Tigerstripes said:


> Doesn't PETA also want all domestic animals to basically die out? I'm not sure about that (it's been awhile since I've looked into them).


Yes MN, that's been their stated goal for a number of years.

They want to end ALL animal ownership, and let all domestic and livestock 'man-made' breeds die out.

Their literature states that all it will take is one generation, and then the animals will be free from the 'tyranny' of humanity.

Yeah, please let my dog know that she's being held at the hands of a despotic maniac. That is, if you can get her to move off my bed, where she's currently sleeping.

Please let my barn cats know they'll be allowed to be free from human interference, and instead of being fed twice a day, they'll be left on their own to find their own meals.

Oh, and yes, my horses are yearning DESPERATELY to be set free and neither fed, watered, groomed, or cared for medically. Because it's obviously _much_ more desirable for them to live short, brutal lives before they become too injured or ill to fight off predators. 

Yeah, living with me sounds like hell on earth for my animals, doesn't it? :think:


----------



## wyominggrandma

yep, they sure do. I show dogs and there have been 'attacks' on show dogs at some of the big shows, PETA folks show up and either let dogs out of the crates or have gone as far as unplugging the electricity that runs the air conditioners on the vans and have dogs die. They say the dogs are better off dead than being pampered show dogs. 
A few years ago, the president of PETA made an announcement when everyone was worried about the hoof and mouth disease showing up in the US, she said she hoped it showed up and killed all the cattle in the US so there would be no more of them.
Oh man, don't get me started on PETA or the HSUS..............


----------



## Speed Racer

Wyoming, wasn't it some PETA nuts who opened cages at one of the really big dog shows, and some of the dogs were never found? 

Yeah, I'm sure those pampered little Foofies who never did anyone any harm lived wonderful, rich, fulfilled lives out on the mean streets of New York City!

PETA also likes to show up and harass 4Hers. What kind of group harasses CHILDREN for cryin' out loud? Telling them they're butchers and murderers, when the kids are just trying to show their cattle, sheep, and goats!

Gah, I hate PETA. When it was just the stupid nekkid B-list celebrity billboards I could deal with it, but deliberately intimidating children? Oh HELL NO!


----------



## themacpack

PETA is just another example of a good idea that has been *******ized. I completely agree with the assessment of them as a terrorist organization.


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

Good to know...

I guess I shouldn't have spend over $300 saving that sick barn kitten this winter/spring. Should have just let her die slowly from the respiratory illness. For that matter when she broke her leg I definitely shouldn't have fixed her.

I should probably run home and "set free" all my animals and stop feeding the barn cats too. Of course the old horse and the old dogs will probably all be dead within a month or so, but that's better than being "caged" by a tyrant like myself. :roll:


----------



## Speed Racer

MN Tigerstripes said:


> I should probably run home and "set free" all my animals and stop feeding the barn cats too. Of course the old horse and the old dogs will probably all be dead within a month or so, but that's better than being "caged" by a tyrant like myself. :roll:


 
Yes you should, you horrible, evil, abusive, meanie doody head! :lol:


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Question for you guys - when I am following PETAs advice and I let my old house dwelling dog loose outside and she comes back and begs at the door to come into the house am I required to force her to stay outside and shiver because it is some how cruel to let her lay in front of the wood stove inside?


----------



## Speed Racer

Yes Always, you must ignore her because living with you is nothing more than slavery, and she'd rather starve and die out in the bitter cold than be subject to your horrible abuse! 

Just ignore the fact that she's shivering and asking to come in. It's better that she freeze to death than be your plaything.

Gah, I try not to let my blood pressure go up, but when someone mentions PETA or HSUS, I just want to punch something.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Plaything. :lol:

Slave is a far better term. She probably calls me her plaything when discussing her life with her other dog friends. 



I suppose I am not allowed to put any of her four dog beds outside for her either. That is more of me forcing my ways on her.


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

What SR said! :lol:


----------



## wyominggrandma

Doody head???????? Oh my, I laughed until tears came. How funny, haven't heard that for awhile.
Yes, PETA did let dogs loose a few years ago and the dogs were never found. It happens every summer.
My poor spoiled show dogs, they live such a bad life. Baths every week, their own dog runs and chain link fence to keep them safe. The best food and getting spoiled by mom when they are in the house. Vet care, their special padded crates to ride to show in. Poor things.
Oh yea, my horses are so sad that I feed them twice a day and grain them and give them heated water and keep them warm through the nasty cold winters. I am sure they would rather be loose trying to live with bears, mountain lions and wolves trying to eat them.

Poor kitties who are lazing on the couch watching the snow come down outside... Oh man, they have to get up and walk to their food dish.

All kidding aside, PETA and HSUS followers(they are like cults , they folks who support have no clue, just listen to the brainwashing they get) are sickos.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

wyominggrandma said:


> All kidding aside, PETA and HSUS followers(they are like cults , they folks who support have no clue, just listen to the brainwashing they get) are sickos.


So true!

I was reading on line about the cast members on the show Glee (I totally enjoy the show, yes, I am a dweeb) and the woman who plays Quinn Fabray (Dianna Agron) is a supporter of PETA and seems to feel the need to make sure that is a fact in her little bios. I really liked her until I saw that.


----------



## Speed Racer

Wyoming, I can curse like a drunken sailor (not proud to admit that ), but we have children on the forum so I'd rather not be the horrible example their parents have been warning them against!

Always, I ignore celebrities and their 'causes du jour'. They have no clue what the real world is like, so I guess I just expect it when they join cults like PETA, HSUS or Scientology.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Valid point on the celebrities, SR. I will continue to enjoy the show.


----------



## goldilockz

You are all abusers, forcing your born-to-be-free doggies and kitties to eat table scraps and drink milk from bowls. I am disgusted with the lot of you!


----------



## Speed Racer

goldilockz said:


> You are all abusers, forcing your born-to-be-free doggies and kitties to eat table scraps and drink milk from bowls. I am disgusted with the lot of you!


******


----------



## wyominggrandma

Ahhh, that is cute.


----------



## themacpack

Not to mention, you are probably NOT feeding your cat and dog a vegan diet. Funny, though, PETA again displays their hypocrisy there -- you are supposed to feed your "prisoners" (aka pets) a vegan diet but they also argue that animals should be left free to roam and live wild....but how will we assure they stick to that strict vegan fare? Let them live naturally, but feed them unnaturally when you imprison them? Makes perfect sense...........???


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Them, it only does not make sense to you because you are not a member of that fine organization and you do not know the secret hand shake yet.
Once you join all this will be crystal clear to you and it will not seem near so .... WRONG.


----------



## Speed Racer

Considering that cats are obligate carnivores, subjecting them to a vegan diet means you're condemning them to a slow, agonizing death.

But I guess that's okay, since they won't be 'enslaved' by your 'cruel tyranny' for very long.


----------



## BrucieBrown

I have always throught horse slaughter should be banned ! All my life !! In england we have a charity called ILPH ! (International Legue of Protection of Horse), I don't know wether anyone from any other country does, but haha !


----------



## Hoofprints in the Sand

Alright I left for awhile and am now back but just to learn  and you guys have certainly opened my eyes about PETA! I used to think they were a bit out there but otherwise a good group but GEEZ!!! letting peoples' dogs loose and telling children they are murderers?! what a bunch of crazies!!!!  

I had no clue they did those things...thanks for enlightening me!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Speed Racer

Yep Hoofprints, they do all those things and more.

They also have ties to ALF (Animal Liberation Front), which is nothing more than a true terrorist group. Violence, destruction, and murder are all on ALF's agenda in order to 'liberate' animals from their 'abusive' owners.

You don't have to be pro slaughter to be anti PETA! :wink:


----------



## vicki9

PETA is not actively involved in ending horse slaughter. They are not running any campaigns, ads or member campaigns. There are no print mailings, no press and have not organized any efforts on horse slaughter. Nada. My understanding (though not confirmed) was that HSUS cut a deal with them to stay out of the horse slaughter issue. If so, that was a smart move because they would do more harm than good although they were responsible for shutting down the largest horse slaughter house in the US – AmFram (?) but that was many years before the organized efforts to end horse slaughter began.


The only thing I’ve seen from PETA was the Japan video which was worthless. A very small number of our horses go to Japan – 192 last year. IMO, the video did not expose anything. It was a Disney movie compared to the US, Mexico and Canada plants. A rescue is connected with the folks in Japan and when their stud duty is over, they contact him and he brings the horses home. If anything, it did more harm in possibly ruining a good relationship with Japan on bringing the horses home.

I’m by no means defending PETA. They are too over the top and are viewed as “crazies”. But to blame PETA for the efforts underway is not correct. They have not been involved in anything - at least the last 5 years that I've been involved.


----------



## wyominggrandma

Yah, and they started a campaign that went for awhile, including billboards. 
Telling kids to "drink beer instead of milk" because it hurt the cows to milk them. 

They stand at dog shows and hand out flyers telling about how cruel we are showing our dogs...Follow hunters into the field to scare the animals away...
Better not do that in Wyoming, they are likely to get shot and never seen again.


----------



## wyominggrandma

Vicki9 said:They have not been involved in anything - at least for the past 5 years that I've been involved. 

PETA is involved in anything that will eventually stop humans enjoying animals in any capacity. Whether they are splashing it on their website or plastering it on billboards or rodeos or wherever they can,or keeping quiet and pushing in the background, PETA is trying to stop us from enjoying our animals.


----------



## Lis

To BrucieBrown, go and look at the ILPH website at their horses for rehoming, they have 232 horses up for adoption in four centres across the UK, most of them are unrideable or youngsters. So many people are struggling to rehome rideable horses and these horses are taking up room in the rescue centres. I've been looking round the rescues recently, not a single one has less than 10 horses in at the moment and that's the smaller ones.


----------



## Speed Racer

wyominggrandma said:


> Better not do that in Wyoming, they are likely to get shot and never seen again.


Virginia may be on the east coast, but I live in an area where harassing hunters may invoke the SSS method of getting rid of PETA idjits.

Not condoning or even encouraging that kind of behaviour, just letting folks know that the veneer of civilization is _very_ thin in certain places.


----------



## Juniper

Listen Up! Tonight, at midnight, we make our escape from the Dreadful Humans. I am fed up with a heated doggie bed and those unnatural mini rawhide bones.... no more will you have to suffer, chasing that never found in nature, yellow tennis ball!


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Juniper, those dogs look horribly abused. You must set them free right now. How dare you make them suffer thru a heated dog bed. :lol:


----------



## Hoofprints in the Sand

LOL juniper, that's it I am calling PETA right now to tell them about this horrific abuse!!! ;-)

Geez, what organizations like PETA fail to realize is that our horses and other animals are DOMESTICATED...they wouldn't fare very well in the wild without any help from us. They certainly wouldn't live as long as they would with us. Even the BARN CATS who live pretty independently get fed some food and have water made available to them! (much as I wish their diet consisted solely of the barn mice lol) ;-)


----------



## themacpack

Hoofprints in the Sand said:


> LOL juniper, that's it I am calling PETA right now to tell them about this horrific abuse!!! ;-)
> 
> Geez, what organizations like PETA fail to realize is that our horses and other animals are DOMESTICATED...they wouldn't fare very well in the wild without any help from us. They certainly wouldn't live as long as they would with us. Even the BARN CATS who live pretty independently get fed some food and have water made available to them! (much as I wish their diet consisted solely of the barn mice lol) ;-)


Yes, but Hoofprints, that is our fault (in PETA's mind) because we humans went and domesticated them in the first place.


----------



## Juniper

*The nature of horses : exploring equine evolution, intelligence, and behavior* 
Budiansky, Stephen.
Peta people should read this book. It is a bit "dry" in places but I found it fascinating. It says the dog and horse in a sense chose to be domesticated. Their personalities evolved to fit in with humans and that saved them from extinction. A lot of species have mutually beneficial relationships. If it was us, the humans, who picked which species were domesticated then why can't we tame other wild animals? Yes, some can be to a point but you cannot train a gazelle like you can a horse for example. Most horses, dogs and cats have found a pretty good niche by throwing their lot in with humans. Nature in the wild can be pretty cruel.


----------

