# Congress Blocks Slaughtering Horses For Meat In U.S.



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_Now, given a bit of language written into the omnibus spending bill that was approved by the Senate on Thursday night, it's seeming more certain that there will be no horse slaughtering on U.S. soil in the foreseeable future. The House already approved the spending measure, which now heads to President Obama for his signature. _

_ The provision bans the funding of U.S. Department of Agriculture inspections at horse slaughter plants. And without inspections, slaughterhouses can't be in business. Game over._

_ "Americans do not want to see scarce tax dollars used to oversee an inhumane, disreputable horse slaughter industry," Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society argues in a press release. He has been lobbying for a ban on funding for horse slaughter inspections."_​Congress Blocks Slaughtering Horses For Meat In U.S. : The Salt : NPR

I may feel squeamish at the mental picture of slaughter, but it makes more sense to me than shipping horses to Mexico for slaughter. Congress! Is there anything they can't fix? < / sarc >


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

What would this world be without bleeding hearts screwing everything up? It's not common sense that makes these decisions, it's all about votes and money to get the votes.


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

Time for the states to step in and pay for it themselves. This is ridiculous.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Wasn't it something to do with funding inspections that closed them in the first place - or part of why that happened?


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

I think there's some legal language that says either the slaughter houses or the states can't pay for the inspectors, conflict of interest or something. I forget exactly how it went but it got slapped down back in the beginning when they first passed this insane law.


----------



## stevenson (Sep 12, 2011)

The law had to read for human consumption, so there would be inspections. horses cannot be slaughtered at the same facility as cattle. With no inspections then the industry could be just as horrid as in Mexico, so saving horses from inhumane treatment just got defeated. 
Off to Mexico they go .


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma is going to try to put funding back into the Farm Bill they are working on. If that does not work, he plans to introduce a stand alone bill providing funding for inspectors.

There are more people that know nothing about horses or the 'unintended consequences' of NOT having processing facilities here in the US. Most voters' votes that elect Representatives are cast by these uninformed city and suburban dwellers. Most public opinion is shaped by the false propaganda that is put out by the evil HSUS and other animal rights groups. These good people with good intentions just do not realize how much more horses suffer because of their actions. Even worse, they give the HSUS over $100,000,000 a year to shape more opinions against actual horse welfare.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

It reflects a perpetual problem - most people live in cites, and do not understand what happens outside of a city, yet they feel free to impose rules on farmers, ranches, national forests, etc. They think ranchers graze on public land for free, and that grazing destroys the land. They have no concept of logging. They think of the 'clear cut and move on' logging of the 1800s, and they believe the propaganda that says all logging is like that. 

I blame organizations like HSUS, that raise funds and live off of pushing propaganda about what goes on. Like all propagandists, they never discuss alternatives. So people who don't know one end of a horse from the other end make rules for horses (or ranches, or wildlife) based on feeling good. But the minority that lives in a rural area, or that owns horses, has to deal with the imposed rules.

I wouldn't think of telling a city where to have the bus lines run. In return, I wish they wouldn't tell me what to do with a horse.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

There's a small processing plant nearby. I know that everything has to be steam cleaned after processing one type of animal before they can do another. This is a 3 person operation. With the huge operations it is better to specialize for efficiency. Even the handling facilities for each is different. Some states are likely under enormous pressure to not have inspectors but that boils down to winning the vote. Perhaps the politicians should be challenged for allowing the inhumane long distance transfer of horses when no other livestock has to travel like that.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

I've been thinking this over. What I'm wondering is that there will be no inspectors if the meat is for human consumption. Does pet food require inspectors?


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

No. As a matter of fact, meat condemned by the inspectors usually gets put into pet foods. Poultry with abscesses becomes 'chicken' and 'chicken by-products'. Beef carcasses found to have diseases like cancer or infections, goes into pet foods. I always get a real kick out of the pet food ads that say they want CHICKEN to be the first name on the label. It is a diseased or condemned chicken -- but they don't tell you that.

All of the old laying hens that are 'worn out' go to the Campbell Soup Plant in North Texas from the big egg houses near here. Our county has about 2 million laying hens housed here. There is an inspector at Campbells' and all the condemned chickens are boiled down to a meal and go to pet food plants and are labeled 'chicken'. Meat and bone meal comes from dead animals sent to rendering plants that boil them all down.

The only animals processed for human consumption that are not inspected are those that are not sold to the public. There are no inspectors at small facilities where people bring their own animals to to be processed. We take our Bison and hogs or beef to a small family owned facility in Madill, OK that we have used for decades.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

I don't like the idea of my tax dollars being spent on a service I will never use & a product I will also never use. I feel the same way about paying for someone else's abortion or birth control & multiple other things someone else decides we need to spend money on.

Why not have the plant owners pay for the inspections? Is there worry about the inspectors being paid to overlook wrong doings? Of course if the owners pay then they will turn that cost over to consumers, as always, but if someone wants to use the facilities or the product then so be it.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

^^ I suspect the plant owners would be glad to pay for the inspections. I also doubt the government would ever allow it, since it would be a conflict of interest in an area involving consumer safety. Areas I do not mind spending tax dollars on include inspecting food, ensuring humane standards for animals, worker safety, etc.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

There are many services that many people pay for with tax $$$ but do not use. 

Childless individuals and couples do not use public schools. Property taxes pay for many services that all residents do not use. Even if you never plan to eat in a restaurant, we all pay for restaurant inspections. 

This is part of how a civilized country tries to make things better and safer for all. Personally, I would not want to live in a country that let unsafe or unhealthy conditions flourish. I think West Virginia could do a better job of inspecting industrial sites. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. It is a top-heavy inefficient bureaucracy, but it beats letting industries self-regulate. We have seen how that works from the banking industry to just about any other industry.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Are the inspection cost issues coming from horses not being recognized as livestock - or are they classed as livestock in the US? There seems to be a differentiation in the UK where a horse is classed as agricultural if its used for farm work or to produce meat or hide and a pet if used for leisure/competition


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

They have always been considered as livestock. Domestic slaughter was actually stopped due to state laws. When there was talk of bringing it back, the animal rights nuts, (mostly led by the political lobbyists paid by HSUS) got politicians to pull funding. Last year, funding was restored and that is why they almost got a new processing facility opened. Then, the last minute, the same politicians funded by HSUS got inspection funding pulled again.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

Isn't the thinking behind this to curb raising horses solely for meat?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

^^ I think the thinking behind this is: "Don't hurt the horsies!"

I don't want to hurt horsies either, but I'm waiting to hear of a good alternative.

Cowboy is our little BLM mustang. He's ridden about 6 times/year, so we obviously do not need him...but as long as I can afford his feed, I guess we'll keep him. I kind of like the little snot, although I wouldn't cry if someone wanted him. But if he or Mia was sick, and couldn't live any longer without pain, and I could have them killed and rendered for dog food or even meat for people (depending on what was wrong), then why not?

I consider the shipping to be the 'cruelty', not the killing. And we still allow shipping to Mexico...


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

That's what I don't understand bsms - they aren't sparing any horses from slaughter at all, just forcing them on a long journey to Mexico or Canada
I was able to take a horse to a slaughter yard myself in the UK by appointment or have them come to the yard to do it and be there to ensure it was handled properly. The money I got went towards buying another horse
Of course the EU regulations on medications have stopped most people doing that over there now which is why so many horses are being abandoned and so many useless horses on the market that keep getting passed around that would at one time have gone for slaughter


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Remember who voted for this and make SURE that you are registered--Today would be a GREAT day to register to vote, if you are not already!!
Also, don't look for the perfect candidate. *
Vote for the best choice and hold them accountable!!!!!*
This same, STUPID argument--_"the horses are trailored 5 days to Mexico to be slaughered"_ was used years ago, when it _wasn't_ true to convince everybody to get rid of horse slaughter. Where I live, the meat market used to drive 4 hours north to a slaughterhouse in Illinois, which was, I believe, the last one shut down in the US. *Now, bc of politicians, this IS true.*
It's time to clean house in Washington, AND in my state, Illinois. 
MANY apologies for my state bc we trained the current President.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

bsms said:


> ^^ I think the thinking behind this is: "Don't hurt the horsies!"
> 
> I don't want to hurt horsies either, but I'm waiting to hear of a good alternative.
> 
> ...


Why not? The fear factor alone is enough for me to never send a horse to slaughter. Horses know terror & the way we kill them terrorizes them. No way I could sit home & wonder if my horse has met it's end yet or is in a yard somewhere 'waiting' with a bunch of others for a full shipment or packed into a truck or being chased down a chute while smelling fear & blood.
If you think that is a fitting end for your horses then that is up to you. If one of mine had an incurable illness or constant pain I would let them go in the most stress free way possible & at home. I have to do what will give me & them the most peace possible. To each his own.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

If it was allowed locally, your horse could be killed in your backyard, and the carcass hauled off to be used for meat. Unhappily, the people who want to "save them" - but who won't put their money where their mouth is - have created a situation where many horses are shipped hundreds and thousands of miles, and then slaughtered in Mexico.

In any case, I eat beef. That means cattle are slaughtered to feed me. Cattle know terror too, although I doubt cattle or horses understand that they are about to be killed. They just know strange = fear, which is why Mia has been known to go in reverse at high speed after seeing a pink parasol.

It is the way of the world. Predators eat prey. Omnivores eat whatever they can get, including prey animals. My 85 year old Mom died writhing on the floor of a group home, probably from a heart attack. The people there tried to help her but could not. My Dad was killed in a helicopter crash in Vietnam. Those who die in their sleep are the lucky exception, not the rule.


----------



## PaintHorseMares (Apr 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> Unhappily, the people who want to "save them" - but who won't put their money where their mouth is - have created a situation where many horses are shipped hundreds and thousands of miles, and then slaughtered in Mexico.


Although I understand your thinking, the people that want to "save them" have not created this problem. Sadly, "we", as part of the collective set of horses owners, which includes both responsible and irresponsible people, are the root of the problem. We have no one to blame but ourselves.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

PaintHorseMares said:


> ...the collective set of horses owners, which includes both responsible and irresponsible people, are the root of the problem. We have no one to blame but ourselves.


Actually, I have no problem with a horse being killed and then having its carcass taken to the local slaughterhouse for butchering. It is modern society's squeamishness over the ugliness of death and a desire to treat horses differently than cattle that has shut down the option of a local slaughterhouse using the carcass of a dead horse.

Overbreeding will always happen because horses live long lives. When Mia was bred in 2001, the market was fine. As she nears 14, it sucks, By the time she is 25, it might be good again. The people breeding horses in 2000 for eager buyers had no way of knowing our economy would tank in 2008, or that our policies (IMHO) have kept it in the tank for 6 years.

Nor do I blame myself for the current market. When my horses were born, I had no intention of ever owning a horse. Cowboy was born wild. There are 3 fewer horses going to slaughter because I own them and feed them - 3 horses whose breeding had nothing to do with me.

Unless you can predict the economy in 2028 or 2035, you cannot blame others for not anticipating this one. The economy normally goes in cycles, and the 30+ life span of many horses will see some ups and downs.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

bsms said:


> If it was allowed locally, your horse could be killed in your backyard, and the carcass hauled off to be used for meat. Unhappily, the people who want to "save them" - but who won't put their money where their mouth is - have created a situation where many horses are shipped hundreds and thousands of miles, and then slaughtered in Mexico.
> 
> In any case, I eat beef. That means cattle are slaughtered to feed me. Cattle know terror too, although I doubt cattle or horses understand that they are about to be killed. They just know strange = fear, which is why Mia has been known to go in reverse at high speed after seeing a pink parasol.
> 
> It is the way of the world. Predators eat prey. Omnivores eat whatever they can get, including prey animals. My 85 year old Mom died writhing on the floor of a group home, probably from a heart attack. The people there tried to help her but could not. My Dad was killed in a helicopter crash in Vietnam. Those who die in their sleep are the lucky exception, not the rule.


Killing at home then using them for meat (human food) will never happen here because it isn't cost effective & there are no inspections in that scenario. I have no problem with what happens to after it's already dead, it's the getting dead part I have a problem with.

One of my vets is also an inspector at a slaughter plant for hogs & cattle. His job is to make sure no abuses occur & cull apparently ill animals. He is also pro-horse slaughter for the reasons most pro people state-to end human induced long term suffering.
He also said that horses should not be slaughtered the same way cattle are because horse don't behave like cattle. 

Here's his thoughts on the subject: Most cattle (& hogs) are used to being in tight groups with the same cattle for most of their lives. They are frequently ran through chutes for treatments & what not, they follow the leader, they seldom fight with each other for space, they are sometimes moved from ranch to ranch in the same group in tight quartered trucks. All things they have experienced before, usually.
They are not pets used to human handling the way most horses are so they readily move away from people & follow each other. The captive bolt is made to easily reach a cows brain when in a steady position. A horse with it's long neck clamped will not stand still like cattle making a good aim difficult.
He said that due to the nature of cattle & their upbringing they seldom show fear at the time of death. 
The best way for horses would be like they do in some other Countries, one by one out of sight of others. But that will never happen here because time is money & production line killing is cost effective.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

I don't know if the market will ever be "good" again...


----------



## Celeste (Jul 3, 2011)

Killing any animal at home and then taking it to the slaughter house for processing is not in keeping with USDA standards. The animals must be taken to the site, inspected while alive, and then inspected again after they are killed. The inspector must be on site during the slaughter. This is true for cattle and hogs, and it will no doubt be true if horses are slaughtered.

Wild game can be processed at a processing place if it is presented to them dead; however, the meat cannot be sold. It is for your personal use only. 

If you want to eat your horse, you are going to have to do the processing yourself, from pasture to freezer.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

Actually, a horse can be killed at home and processed just like wild game meat if a private processing facility will accept them. There are actually no laws that would prevent them from being killed and processed at a local facility as long as they were labeled "Not for resale". We take live bison in to a small family owned facility and they come back with each package stamped "GAME", the "date" and "Not for resale". Beef and pork are just stamped "Beef" or "Pork", the "date" and "Not for resale" and wild hogs are stamped like the bison with "Game". I asked them last year if someone wanted to bring in a horse, if they could or would process it. They said there was no law would not let them process it for its owner. They said they have been asked but will not process them because they feared a massive backlash from the public and the radical animal rights nuts. This family owned facility has processed animals for us for over 20 years and they tell us that they wished they could process them without fear of arson or ???. There are no inspectors at this plant or any other plant where meat is not packaged for resale. 

So far, no private plant has done this in Oklahoma. One plant said they would process horses for private individuals but then changed their minds.


----------



## kiltsrhott (Mar 11, 2012)

I'm probably jumping into the shark tank here, but I just want to be the devils advocate and point out a few things.

It is not beneficial to the American public to federally subsidize horse slaughter plants in the US. It will cost millions of taxpayer dollars to fund inspections for foreign-owned slaughter plants that provide no revenue for Americans and only a handful of low-paying and dangerous jobs that have previously been filled by illegal immigrants and ex-convicts.

Pro-slaughter advocates claim that opening slaughter plants in the US will somehow reduce the number of unwanted, abused and neglected horses, but this is not the case. The overpopulation problem stems from irresponsible breeding practices. Slaughter becomes a secondary market that encourages over breeding. Large scale breeders are known to breed for quantity over quality in the hopes that a handful of their stock will become successful. The excess animals produced that are unable to be sold are shipped off to slaughter for a small profit. More than 70% of American horses going to slaughter are registered Quarter Horses. The USDA documented that more than 92% of horses who go to slaughter are in good condition. It makes sense that the AQHA would support slaughter as a side market for Quarter Horse breeding, because they profit from the registration of these surplus animals. Much of the propaganda you hear advocating in favor of funding and legalizing horse slaughter in the US is driven by those who would benefit from it financially. They are feeding the public partial truths in the hopes that legislation will swing in their favor. It also makes sense that horses in good condition are more likely to go to slaughter. Kill buyers are paid by the pound and healthy horses mean more money.

If you feel like reading more on the topic, see here: Horse Slaughter: Revealing The Truth, Part Five – The Money Trail | Habitat For Horses

The fact of the matter is, the demand for horse meat produced by the US and the numbers US of horses going to slaughter is driven by the demand for horse meat in other countries, not our own needs for disposal of unwanted horses. "Horse neglect and abandonment cannot logically be attributed to the closure of U.S slaughter plants because the number of U.S. horses sent to slaughter has not decreased since domestic slaughter ceased in 2007. Horses are still being sent to slaughter, across our borders in Canada and Mexico. The slaughter option still exists, so any increase in neglect or abandonment can only be attributed to other economic factors. Any downturn in the horse market is clearly related to the economic downturn that began the same year that the last slaughter plant closed and continues today. Historically, all animals—dogs, cats, horses, and even farm animals raised for food—face greater chances of neglect in a poor economy" In short, the number of neglected animals is directly correlated to the economy. The number of horses sold to slaughter has not increased in relation to the increasing number of unwanted horses. This further proves that the market is driven by demand, and not supply. Opening up more slaughter plants will not solve our unwanted horse problem. Educating breeders, discouraging careless over breeding (even in times when the economy is good) and doing what we can to improve our current economic situation will help revive the horse market and reduce number of unwanted horses in the future. The slaughter plant in Illinois was importing horses from Canada for slaughter prior to 2007 so not all horses slaughtered in the US were even our own.

Having the plant locations within US borders is of no benefit either. Large horse population centers are in coastal regions, while slaughter plants are generally located in the mid-west. Unwanted horses from the east and west coasts must still travel long distances before reaching the slaughter house. Property values surrounding horse slaughter plants suffer a decrease and in turn the local economy suffers. Property values plummet for many reasons but pollution is one of them:

"As with Dallas Crown, Beltex had a non-unionized workforce. OSHA records revealed that since the plants' inception in 1977 until its last inspection in 1997, Beltex had committed 29 violations of which 28 were deemed serious. OSHA records show that an ammonia leak occurred in 1996, but no one (fortunately) died or was permanently disabled. In 2000 the facility "accidentally pumped blood into the creek" and "in 2001, they were notified that waste water was flowing into adjacent properties and into the creek."[5]

Of particular note, the Sanitation Group of DeKalb, Illinois, where Cavel International was located, identified the incomparable hazard associated with the discharge from horse slaughter facilities.

"This hazard is uniquely acute for horse slaughter because of the wide range of drugs given to horses that are clearly labeled NOT FOR USE IN HORSES INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION."[6]

These noxious drugs are not only present in the meat intended for human consumption overseas but also in the waste water and sludge produced during processing. This runoff has the potential to contaminate down-stream water intakes, including groundwater used for human consumption, and can enter the food chain via sludge distribution on crops."

This brings me to my next point. Unless the horses being sent to slaughter are raised for human consumption they are likely to contain bio-accumulated compounds in their flesh that are detrimental to human health. It is documented that certain drugs deemed safe for horses cause serious illness in humans, including aplastic anemia and cancer. Because these toxins make their way into water supplies and food sources in locations near horse slaughter houses, and the meat unfit for safe, human consumption is then sold for human consumption overseas, I see this as less of an animal welfare issue and more of a human health issue.

Regulation on the meat used for human consumption in European countries is being addressed by their own governments. In December 2014 mandatory origin labeling will begin on all unlabeled meats sold in Europe and further legislation is expected to require any US horse slaughtered for human consumption to have veterinary records documenting all medical treatments, vaccination, and dewormers given throughout the animal's lifetime. If this is implemented, any horse administered any product not safe for use in animals used for human consumption will not be eligible for slaughter. Any horse given Bute or some common dewormers at any point in its lifetime will be included in this. It is expected that the demand for horse meat imported from the US will decline with these new labeling laws in Europe and whatever further action is taken to reduce the amount of tainted meat sold to their public. Asian countries are expected to follow suit within the next few years. This further emphasizes the importance of finding other ways to address our horse overpopulation problem.

I also read that the national average for euthanasia and disposal of a horse carcass via rendering, burial or commercial composting is only $225. This is much lower than the average monthly cost of keeping a horse. It should not be a huge issue for responsible owners looking to dispose of unwanted horses to cough up the money to have their horses humanely euthanized and properly disposed of. Despite this number, there are movements towards other, cheaper methods of euthanazia becoming available. Some veterinarians are already trained to euthanize via single gunshot wound. I have already seen this occurring in Pennsylvania, as I work in a veterinary laboratory that only accepts deceased animals for pathology evaluation. Many of the large animals submitted for testing have been euthanized via gunshot.

One important benefit of a ban on horse slaughter is a decrease in horse theft. "When California banned horse slaughter in 1998, the horse theft rate dropped 34 percent." This makes sense because thieves can make a quick buck stealing a horse and reselling to slaugher. Once the horse is slaughtered evidence of the theft is destroyed. It's a crime that is both lucrative, and easy to get away with.

There are more arguments in addition to these that logically support an opposition to horse slaughter that are not invented by whiny, tear-jerking animal rights organizations. These are economical and human health facts drawn from unbiased studies. I'm sharing this with you so you can see the other side of the horse slaughter argument in a bit of a different light. You can choose to ignore it, disagree with it, or not believe it. I'm not here to argue, just throw something else out there for you all to mull over.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"It will cost millions of taxpayer dollars to fund inspections for foreign-owned slaughter plants that provide no revenue for Americans and only a handful of low-paying and dangerous jobs that have previously been filled by illegal immigrants and ex-convicts."

Really? You think the average slaughterhouse in the US is owned by foreign companies?

"Sappington is the livestock buyer for Valley Meat, a company that used to keep busy slaughtering cattle for beef. Then came the droughts. Without enough feed, New Mexico ranchers’ herds withered, and by early 2012, Valley Meat’s business had dried up. The plant decided to reconfigure its kill line for horses. It’s ready to become the U.S.’s first functioning horse slaughterhouse in more than six years—if Washington signs off on the plans."

A Slaughterhouse for Horse Meat Waits in New Mexico - Businessweek

"Horses are still being sent to slaughter, across our borders in Canada and Mexico. The slaughter option still exists..."

Yes, with lower sums paid to sellers, and with long trips ahead for the horses. I'm also less trusting of a slaughterhouse operated in Mexico. In what sense is this a positive argument for banning slaughter in the USA?

"Large horse population centers are in coastal regions, while slaughter plants are generally located in the mid-west."

Hmmm...I lived 90 miles from Roswell, NM - where Valley Meat operates. Plenty of horses in eastern New Mexico and west Texas!

"Unless the horses being sent to slaughter are raised for human consumption they are likely to contain bio-accumulated compounds in their flesh that are detrimental to human health."

I don't believe it. Sorry. I'd bet my horses living in my backyard have had less strange things fed to them than the average chicken, yet I eat chicken.

"I also read that the national average for euthanasia and disposal of a horse carcass via rendering, burial or commercial composting is only $225. This is much lower than the average monthly cost of keeping a horse. It should not be a huge issue for responsible owners looking to dispose of unwanted horses to cough up the money to have their horses humanely euthanized and properly disposed of."

Try calling a vet and telling them you want to kill a horse because you don't want to own it. See what reaction you get. And around here, their carcasses are then hauled to the city dump. Why? Why not use them for food?

"In December 2014 mandatory origin labeling will begin on all unlabeled meats sold in Europe and further legislation is expected to require any US horse slaughtered for human consumption to have veterinary records documenting all medical treatments, vaccination, and dewormers given throughout the animal's lifetime."

If so, the European market will dry up. Maybe others will open up. If not, the lack of demand will shut down horse slaughter.

"The overpopulation problem stems from irresponsible breeding practices."

No. It exists because a breeder in a good market produces an animal that will live for as much as 35 years, and there will be a couple of bad markets during that 35 year lifespan. When Mia was bred in 2000, there was a good horse market. Right now, I'd be hard pressed to give her away. Fortunately for Mia, she is likely to be with me for as long as she lives without pain. But she is a sweepstakes nominated mare, bred during a good market when there were plenty of buyers.


----------



## Sharpie (May 24, 2009)

_Quoting kiltsrhott "It is not beneficial to the American public to federally subsidize horse slaughter plants in the US... that provide no revenue for Americans"_ False- every person who sold a horse to meat at auction makes money, the meat buyers make money, the feedlotters make money, the shippers make money, the slaughter/packers make money, and they all have employees who are paid to work those jobs, so they make money off the eventual sale of the meat to foreign markets and pet food.

_"Pro-slaughter advocates claim that opening slaughter plants in the US will somehow reduce the number of unwanted, abused and neglected horses" _Yes, because they will be dead.

_"The overpopulation problem stems from irresponsible breeding practices." _Perhaps in part, but as BSMS pointed out, at the time many of our current horses were bred, there WAS a good market and high likelihood they would have jobs and homes, so it wasn't nearly as irresponsible at the time.

_"The USDA documented that more than 92% of horses who go to slaughter are in good condition."_ I hope so. Unhealthy, poor condition horses are suffering, potentially ill, and not fit for human consumption any more than poorly conditioned cattle or hogs.

_"It makes sense that the AQHA would support slaughter as a side market for Quarter Horse breeding, because they profit from the registration of these surplus animals." _Agreed, but I think I have a fundamental difference of opinion as I see no problem with people raising horses SOLELY for slaughter, for profit, so long as the horses are treated and cared for properly from birth to slaughter. Given that, having it as a side or secondary market really is not morally objectionable to me. Horses are not different than cows, sheep, goats, or hogs in their ability to suffer or feel pain and it is false in my mind to say that it is 'okay' to eat this animal and 'not okay' to eat that one.
_
"The fact of the matter is, the demand for horse meat produced by the US and the numbers US of horses going to slaughter is driven by the demand for horse meat in other countries" _True, because there is money in it. Contrary to your first statement.
_
"The slaughter option still exists, so any increase in neglect or abandonment can only be attributed to other economic factors." _Not really- meat buyers used to pay enough that it was worthwhile to get an unwanted horse to auction even with the PITA and fuel factors. Not so anymore. Easier to abandon them.

_"Educating breeders, discouraging careless over breeding (even in times when the economy is good) and doing what we can to improve our current economic situation will help revive the horse market and reduce number of unwanted horses in the future." _Absolutely agree.

_"Having the plant locations within US borders is of no benefit either." _Disagree. While you are correct that travel times may still be too long for anyone's comfort, at least in the US we can require animals be fed, watered and rested at given intervals and monitor both the holding and slaughter processes. While the system is given to corruption, at least there is a chance to keep things above board. Out of country there is zero way to enforce humane treatment, and while Canada has decent rules that are hopefully enforced, that is not true for Mexico.

_"As with Dallas Crown, Beltex had a non-unionized workforce. OSHA records revealed that since the plants' inception in 1977 until its last inspection in 1997, Beltex had committed 29 violations"_ So, only about 1.5 per year? Look at cattle numbers, that's pretty darned good! Especially if you factor in how many animals they process.

_"This hazard is uniquely acute for horse slaughter because of the wide range of drugs given to horses that are clearly labeled NOT FOR USE IN HORSES INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION."_ Which are labeled as such primarily due to the lack of testing (any drug which has not been proven safe is prohibited), which stems from a lack of market ($$) for the pharm companies as discussed previously on other threads.

_"Unless the horses being sent to slaughter are raised for human consumption they are likely to contain bio-accumulated compounds in their flesh that are detrimental to human health." _The risk of accumulation is only present in some compounds, and vastly overstated by the media IMPO, so I disagree here as well. The major drugs commonly used in horses (Bute, Banamine) are water soluable and clear from an animals tissue in days, so unless the shippers and packers are giving them to the animals, by the time they're processed, they should be 'clean.' That said, as above, the studies to prove that to the FDA, USDA and EU have not been done in the US, or done to acceptable standards.
_
"December 2014 mandatory origin labeling will begin on all unlabeled meats sold in Europe and further legislation is expected to require any US horse slaughtered for human consumption to have veterinary records documenting all medical treatments, vaccination, and dewormers given throughout the animal's lifetime." _Eventually beef as well, but as we can't get universal tracking implemented there either, I expect it to be a slow process.

_"..average for euthanasia and disposal of a horse carcass via rendering, burial or commercial composting is only $225...It should not be a huge issue for responsible owners.." _Agreed, but responsible owners aren't generally the problem in the first place.

_ "When California banned horse slaughter in 1998, the horse theft rate dropped 34 percent."_ I hadn't heard that before, awesome info!

Though I disagree with you in several ways, I appreciate your well thought out post. I wish folks like you were the ones voting and writing all these laws as it is clear you actually have put some actual thought and real info into it! Too much of legislation is based on knee-jerk and borderline extreme agendas.


----------



## kiltsrhott (Mar 11, 2012)

I said I wouldn't come back and argue but I can't help it...



> Really? You think the average slaughterhouse in the US is owned by foreign companies?


Yes, they are. The three horse slaughter plants operating prior to 2007 in the US were:

Dallas Crown Packaging in Kaufman, TX. Dallas Crown was Belgian owned.

Bel-Tex Corporation in Ft. Worth, Texas was French and Belgian owned.

Cavel International, Inc. in DeKalb, Illinois was also owned by a Belgian company.

If the plant in NM gains permissions necessary to slaughter horses this would be only one horse slaughter plant owned by a US company.



> Yes, with lower sums paid to sellers, and with long trips ahead for the horses. I'm also less trusting of a slaughterhouse operated in Mexico. In what sense is this a positive argument for banning slaughter in the USA?


This one sentence of a paragraph quote is not the argument positive for slaughter opposition. It's the fact that the number of US horses going to slaughter has remained stagnant while numbers of unwanted horses has risen. Even with slaughter still readily available as an option for sellers, unwanted horses are still a problem. This proves a disconnect in the theory that the unwanted horse problem stems from a lack of disposal options. It correlates to a downturn in the US economy, not the fact that horses are unable to be slaughtered (because they are still being slaughtered). The market for horse meat is only as big as it is, and we are already flooding it with healthy, registered horses. The number of US horses being slaughtered will not change by relocating their destinations, therefore, the horse overpopulation problem will not be solved by opening plants here.



> Hmmm...I lived 90 miles from Roswell, NM - where Valley Meat operates. Plenty of horses in eastern New Mexico and west Texas!


Horses directly near the plant may benefit from shorter trips, but I live in PA, nearly 2,000 miles from there. The two slaughter houses in Quebec are much closer in distance to here, and to the New Holland Auction which is one of the largest sources of horses for kill buyers in the US. The states with the highest population density of horses are Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, with 15.6 - 5.3 horses per average square mile. There are only 3.7 and 1.3 horses per square mile in TX and NM respectively. That one slaughter house is NM would do little to shorten the trip for most horses. It would actually make for a longer trip for an extremely large population of horses residing in the North East.



> I don't believe it. Sorry. I'd bet my horses living in my backyard have had less strange things fed to them than the average chicken, yet I eat chicken.


I work for the department of agriculture. The antibiotics and growth hormones food animals are fed are still a great source of debate but they are not treated with other products that are known direct human health threats. They are raised specifically for food and treated as such. Horses are not. You can choose to believe this or not.



> Try calling a vet and telling them you want to kill a horse because you don't want to own it. See what reaction you get. And around here, their carcasses are then hauled to the city dump. Why? Why not use them for food?


I worked for two different veterinarians before landing my current job (a large and small animal vet). Both veterinarians would willingly euthanize an animal if it was requested by the owner, and they had to on more than one occasion during my time working there. They never liked to do it, and would offer to take the animal and rehome it themselves, but ultimately they had to respect the owner's wishes. They were never rude to clients because that is great way to lose business! The equine vet I worked for kept three horses that were unwanted by clients. The small animal vet rehomed more than one dog and kept a cat that a client could not afford to treat after the cat was injured.

Where I work now, I test the brain tissue of dead animals for rabies. We receive specimens every day (including horses) that were euthanized for reasons of aggressive or otherwise bad behavior and submitted for rabies testing. Most of these animals were vaccinated and ultimately test negative. I know owners are just using the rabies test as an excuse to euthanize an unwanted pet. People also use the service for free disposal. The rabies test in the state of Pennsylvania is a free test and disposal is included. (If anyone from PA is reading this, let it be known that theft of services is frowned upon and chronic submitters are charged disposal fees.)

The most common method of carcass disposal in my area is rendering and commercial composting, which are economical uses for carcasses not fit for consumption. People with enough of their own land will bury the animal on-site at no cost to them. If they wanted to slaughter it and eat it themselves, they could, but most people have no desire to eat horse. I know quite a few people who have eaten horse and most have negative opinions on the taste. I live in a rural area where people slaughter their own animals to eat on a regular basis so this is an option that is just not taken. Perhaps better options for useful disposal need to be made available in your area.



> No. It exists because a breeder in a good market produces an animal that will live for as much as 35 years, and there will be a couple of bad markets during that 35 year lifespan. When Mia was bred in 2000, there was a good horse market. Right now, I'd be hard pressed to give her away. Fortunately for Mia, she is likely to be with me for as long as she lives without pain. But she is a sweepstakes nominated mare, bred during a good market when there were plenty of buyers.


This is not true.The average age of horses sent to slaughter is only 3 - 9 years old. This only solidifies evidence that slaughter is being used as a secondary market for large scale breeders. Old horses are not the prevalent age group going through kill auctions. Think about it. Most owners who care enough and are financially stable enough to support their horse into their older years are not going to throw their hands up and sell their horse to slaughter for a quick buck as soon as their horse is no longer useful to them. They're going to take their time to find a retirement home for their elderly horse, provide retirement on their own, or have the aged horse euthanized. Adult horses with some experience are also more valuable in the horse market, because they generally have the temperament and the ability to make great amateur show horses, lesson horses, child-safe mounts and family horses. A horse that is 14, broke and has some performance experience will have a much easier time finding a home than an unbroke, 5-year-old with little to no show record or trail experience etc.


----------



## Sharpie (May 24, 2009)

kiltsrhott said:


> I said I wouldn't come back and argue but I can't help it...


I know, it's so hard to resist! :lol:


----------



## kiltsrhott (Mar 11, 2012)

> False- every person who sold a horse to meat at auction makes money, the meat buyers make money, the feedlotters make money, the shippers make money, the slaughter/packers make money, and they all have employees who are paid to work those jobs, so they make money off the eventual sale of the meat to foreign markets and pet food.


I can see your point here, but the ones at the top of the horse meat industry money chain are still foreign-owned companies, and small amount of money made here and there by kill buyers, transporters and slaughter plant workers is not enough for me to want a significant amount of our tax dollars funding inspections to keep the plants running. And it has been documented in the past that many of the people doing this work are undocumented or illegal immigrants, or ex-convicts. I'm sorry, but I'm not keen on supporting an industry just to support them.



> Yes, because they will be dead.


Not necessarily, because, as I said before, slaughter is still an option, even now, and the unwanted horse problem is not being resolved. We could, theoretically, just sell more to slaughter, but all markets are driven by demand for the product. We have already met and exceeded the demand of the foreign horse meat market with our unwanted horse population. Killing more won't help us if the consumers aren't willing to consume any more than they already are.



> Agreed, but I think I have a fundamental difference of opinion as I see no problem with people raising horses SOLELY for slaughter, for profit, so long as the horses are treated and cared for properly from birth to slaughter. Given that, having it as a side or secondary market really is not morally objectionable to me. Horses are not different than cows, sheep, goats, or hogs in their ability to suffer or feel pain and it is false in my mind to say that it is 'okay' to eat this animal and 'not okay' to eat that one.


This is an interesting view on the topic, and I might agree with you if the AQHA was operating in this manner. The large scale breeders that sell surplus to slaugher first try to sell as many horses on the pleasure market as possible. The unsellables are then shunted off to slaughter for a last bit of profit. These animals are not being raised for meat. They are raised for pleasure and performance and are treated as such until it is decided that selling them per pound is more lucrative.



> Not really- meat buyers used to pay enough that it was worthwhile to get an unwanted horse to auction even with the PITA and fuel factors. Not so anymore. Easier to abandon them.


I still don't see how relocating the horses' destination will increase the market value of horse meat. The European consumers ultimately set the price. They will only pay what they are willing to pay for the meat, and if we start slaughtering more horses it will only offset the balance of supply vs. demand which will lower the value of horses sold for meat. This is basic economics here.



> Disagree. While you are correct that travel times may still be too long for anyone's comfort, at least in the US we can require animals be fed, watered and rested at given intervals and monitor both the holding and slaughter processes. While the system is given to corruption, at least there is a chance to keep things above board. Out of country there is zero way to enforce humane treatment, and while Canada has decent rules that are hopefully enforced, that is not true for Mexico.


While there is some truth to this, I do work in agriculture, and I can attest for the fact that our current regulations for the welfare of our own food animals is not very well enforced. Agriculture is usually one of the first departments, on a state and federal level, to suffer the effects of budget cuts. Agriculture, right now, is extremely under staffed and it is not possible, even if there were sufficient staffing, for our eyes to be everywhere. Even within US borders food producers cut corners at the expense of the animals' well being on an alarmingly frequent basis. There is evidence that the slaughter houses in Mexico show some discretion on what horses they allow through to slaughter. Injured and ill horses are often rejected and this was discovered when abandoned horses, originally destined for slaughter in Mexico, were found loose within our own borders. In all honesty, slaughter is slaughter. It's not a pretty way to die no matter how you look at it. If it's being done in mass numbers, no matter where it's occurring and what regulations are in place, it's going to be ugly.



> Which are labeled as such primarily due to the lack of testing (any drug which has not been proven safe is prohibited), which stems from a lack of market ($$) for the pharm companies as discussed previously on other threads.


This is also true, and I'm sure many of the drugs on the laundry list of things that are not approved for human consumption are in this category, but Bute is the biggest one. All of the horses in our barn have had Bute at some point in their lives, and this one is not labeled as such for lack of testing. It is labeled not safe for human consumption based on findings that it is really not safe. "Phenylbutazone was originally made available for use in humans for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1949. However, when combined with paracetamol and many other household painkillers even in the smallest doses can cause irreversible liver degradation proving fatal in many cases.[citation needed] It is no longer approved, and therefore not marketed, for any human use in the United States.[3] In the UK it is used to treat ankylosing spondylitis, but only when other therapies are unsuitable."

The EFSA has done studies that found Bute in the meat of horses used for human consumption, hence why it has been banned for use in animals raised for food in the UK. Bute remains in the animals blood stream for 5 days after it's been administered and can remain in the flesh for much longer. Ex-race horses tend to test positive for traces of Bute in the flesh than others, but it is a real concern. It's not true that bute is water soluble. Even if it were that wouldn't change the concern for its effects on human health:

According to European Pharmacopoeia:
"PHENYLBUTAZONE
Phenylbutazonum
C19H20N2O2 Mr 308.4
DEFINITION
4-Butyl-1,2-diphenylpyrazolidine-3,5-dione.
Content: 99.0 per cent to 101.0 per cent (dried substance).
CHARACTERS
Appearance: white or almost white, crystalline powder.
Solubility: practically insoluble in water, sparingly soluble
in alcohol. It dissolves in alkaline solutions."

I do have to thank you, Shapie, and BSMS for participating in a good healthy debate too! I do like to hear views from the other side as well!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

If Toyota builds a car plant here in the US, do workers in the US benefit? And the only slaughterhouse currently up for opening is US owned.

If it can be opened, then others can open. Where will they open? My guess is it will be based on the availability of cheap horses. The cost of shipping the meat to Europe or Japan would tend to encourage a coastal plant to open. There is no rule saying that all slaughterhouses can only open in Oklahoma or New Mexico - although the coastal states tend to be more liberal politically, and probably more likely to refuse a business license.

Vets and killing: I had a dog with a megaesophagus. He was not in pain, but he barfed 3-4 times a day. I had taken him in for a couple of days until his owner could be found, but his owner didn't want him and neither did anyone else. 13 months later, I called some vets to see about having him killed. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but 13 months of living in dog barf was my personal maximum. When the 3rd vet in a row refused, saying it wasn't ethical, I said I'd take him out in the desert and shoot him - and hope I didn't miss. Only then did the vet agree to do the job humanely.

Slaughter demographics:"_A more detailed study of the demographics of horses deemed unwanted would show the horse industry where it needs to focus its efforts. As an example, former racehorses are often singled out as examples of unwanted horses when their racing careers end and they are not candidates for breeding or other athletic endeavors. However, there are undocumented estimates suggesting that fewer than 10% of the horses that go to slaughter are Thoroughbreds. So just how many of the 100,000 plus horses that went to slaughter last year in Canada and Mexico were former racehorses? What is the average age and sex of these unwanted horses? Why were they unwanted? Are they purebred or grade horses? We need answers to these, and other questions, to be able to understand the source of the problem and to work toward reducing the number of unwanted horses_."​https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/R...-Welfare-Focus-Featured-Article-Feb-2012.aspx

As for drugs in the system of horses...I'm ex-military. I"ve been vaccinated for anthrax more times than I can count, and smallpox and yellow fever and the list goes on. I've eaten MREs courtesy of Uncle Sam, and I'm certain THOSE are pretty unnatural! Come to think of it, a lot of the Mess Hall food didn't look very natural, either! Guess it would take a lot to bother me...:wink:


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Finding a market for the meat that returns a good profit is one of the biggest negatives - the demand in Europe is declining with supply tending to exceed demand and not helped by the scandals last year when it was found that horsemeat was being illegally used in many 'ready meals'
Our individual perception of the safety of banned drugs is irrelevant - the use of Bute in any livestock bred for meat has been banned worldwide for a long time and regardless of what I think or want the chances of it being reversed is unlikely.


----------



## Celeste (Jul 3, 2011)

bsms said:


> If Toyota builds a car plant here in the US, do workers in the US benefit? And the only slaughterhouse currently up for opening is US owned.


As a taxpayer, I do not have to subsidize Toyota. If someone wants to set up a horse slaughter facility, why can't they pay their own inspectors? I pay enough taxes as it is.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

As a taxpayer, you pay for food inspections. 

You also pay for OSHA inspectors in Toyota plants. In Arizona, you get to pay inspectors to check your Toyota for exhaust emissions. You pay taxes to inspect safety complaints against Toyota. You pay taxes to check Toyota's compliance with zoning regulations. You pay taxes to supervise Toyota's compliance with labor laws.

If we allowed slaughterhouses to pay for their own inspectors, they would. Gladly.:wink:


----------



## Celeste (Jul 3, 2011)

Like I said, that is enough tax for me.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I agree. I thought I owned my home until I had to pay my property taxes each year out of pocket. I now figure I rent it from the government...:-(


----------



## 4horses (Nov 26, 2012)

I just want to point out one thing... I have a degree in animal science. We learned all about slaughter (how it is done etc)... The problem I see with equine slaughter, is that the animals that are more "desirable" for meat are those that are young (2 yr olds). Younger animals give a better meat "grade" and have more marbling than an old and skinny horse. 

So it is a myth that only old, skinny, lame, unwanted horses go to slaughter.

In fact it is going to be your young, fat, unbroke 2 yr old that goes for meat. As for breed preference, I'm sure QH's, or drafts are preferred for meat. The reason being, a quarter horse or draft has a lot more fat and muscle compared with a TB. A meat buyer is going to know this, and bid on animals accordingly.

If they are going to allow horse slaughter in this country- I believe horses should be put down by hand, and not with the machine used to kill cattle. But that is a whole other problem in itself.

The problem with these issues is that it is either "pro-slaughter" vs "against slaughter"... Instead I say we should all agree on a middle ground- if we are going to have slaughter, it needs tighter regulations (as far as safe transport, safe holding pens, etc). Anyone see the movie Temple Grandin? She does have a point about how we manage the animals we are going to eat...

So if these horses are ending up in Canada or Mexico- lets try making it a better trip. For example: the horse transportation and Safety act is still sitting as a bill. Only 6 states have banned double decker trailers for horses. We can do something about this!

https://awionline.org/content/horse-transportation-safety-act


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a new rule on Sept. 7 amending the regulations regarding the transportation of slaughter-bound horses in double-decker trailers.

The Commercial Transportation of Horses to Slaughter Act, passed in 1996, gave horses bound for slaughter some protections, and after Dec. 7, 2006, slaughter transporters weren't allowed to move horses to their destinations outside of the United States in double-decker trailers. The new rule prohibits horses being transported in double-deckers to any point on their way to their final destination."

September 16, 2011

USDA Gets More Strict On Double-Decker Trailers | The Chronicle of the Horse


----------



## 4horses (Nov 26, 2012)

The double decker trailer ban is in place, only for horses going to slaughter. 

Double deckers are still allowed for moving horses (as long as it is not for slaughter). See the problem? It is not enforceable. 

If a double decker is pulled over, the driver just has to say they aren't taking them to slaughter and who is to know the difference? The same with crossing borders into Mexico and Canada. This is a loophole which allows the meat buyers to still use double decker trailers. 

As of August 2013, the bill was re-introduced.

Sen. Kirk Reintroduces Horse Transportation Safety Bill


----------



## Strawberry4Me (Sep 13, 2012)

What I don't get is why no one is organized enough to do things the way they should be done! 

Why would/ did they pass something that said slaughter was legal in the U.S. without FIRST going through the details of what that meant? Like regulating the horses, what they are fed, what they are transported in, how they will be killed, who will do the killing, who will do the inspections, how will we pay for that... 

I just don't get it.

Its like buying a new car with no drivers license, when you're legally blind and can't drive anyway. WHAT?!?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

It has been legal in the US all along. It was stopped because Congress pulled the funding for meat inspectors. Since the meat could not be inspected in the US, the slaughter takes place in Mexico and Canada, increasing the distance of transport and decreasing supervision.


----------



## Strawberry4Me (Sep 13, 2012)

bsms said:


> It has been legal in the US all along. It was stopped because Congress pulled the funding for meat inspectors. Since the meat could not be inspected in the US, the slaughter takes place in Mexico and Canada, increasing the distance of transport and decreasing supervision.


I thought that it was made legal within the past few years... I remember a thread on here about the legalization of horse slaughter. 

Maybe I am thinking of something else, there have been so many of these threads!


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

*NO ONE BREEDS FOR A SLAUGHTER MARKET!!!*
​ *HORSES DO NOT GO TO SLAUGHTER BECAUSE OF 'OVER-BREEDING'!!!*
​Horses go to slaughter simply because of their lack of value and a lack of a better market for that particular horse at that particular time. They are called 'unwanted horses' because most go through auctions and no one wants them, so the low bid of a 'killer buyer' gets them. Everyone else has a chance to buy them, but if no one else wants them, the KB gets them.

When the economy is good, the demand and market prices are high and horses are bred and raised to fill that demand. The problem is that horses take 3 or 4 years from the time a mare is bred by a stallion until the resulting foal is ready to ride and train. Then, some 15 years later, that horse is STILL needing to be fed and cared for whether it has any useful purpose or not. No breeder knows what the economy or market condition is going to be in 5 years, much less 20 years down the road. 

In 2005, the market was great. People could not breed saddle horse stock fast enough. The 'Foundationbred Quarter Horse market was so good that entire ranches from Texas to Montana sold their cattle and started raising horses. Auctions were held every fall for weanlings and some averaged over $5000.00 at auction. In 2008 and 2009, many of those same big ranches went bankrupt and hundreds of thousands of horses suddenly had no market at all. 

Horse breeding has always gone in cycles. There was an even bigger sell-off of horses back in the early to mid 90s. At that time, over 300,000 horses went to slaughter each year for several years. No one has a crystal ball and no one knows when the next cycle will go up or down. Horses and horse breeders are just along for the ride. It is not fair to vilify breeders because they do the best them can with the market at hand. Their cyrstal ball is no better than yours.

Prices are now coming back up. The breeding herd shrank to a fraction of what it was, but the economy is improving and people are once again looking for good young horses to ride and train. Prices are up significantly in the last few months. 

When the market is strong and people are looking for young prospects to train (the horses we call 'project horses'), very few young horses go to slaughter that are not crippled, ugly or ill-tempered. I KNOW! I used to buy a lot of project horses for customers. I always had 2 or 3 people wanting 1 or 2 of them. In 2005, I could not find a decent looking and decent bred AQHA project gelding for less than $2500.00 In 2009, most of them were going to the killer buyers because I and anyone else like me had no one wanting to take a chance on one of them. You cannot blame breeders for this. It is just part of the 'supply and demand' cycle. The supply always dries up several years after the demand dries up and visa-verse. 

As for double deck trucks -- I have not seen one haul horses for several years. As a matter of fact, all of the slaughter-bound horses leaving the big local sales in Texas and Oklahoma for more than 10 or 15 years have all been hauled on 53' floor trucks. The ONLY double-deckers I have personally seen were hired by the BLM to haul mustangs into Pauls Valley, OK from Nevada. 

Rodeo stock and slaughter horses are about all that are hauled in semis (other than BLM horses). Everyone that hauls them is trying to keep horses from being injured or hauling badly. No one shipping these horses neglects them because pounds and injuries equals dollars. All of the neglect comes at the hands of owners that try to hang on to their horses when they cannot afford them and try to keep from selling them.


----------

