Tell Congress to Pass the SAFE Act Banning Horse Slaughter (different petition)

[Fairfax]

Most revealing was a post from Jenm. She asked it I was going to work with other horse owners or were we just going to walk away and not assist the horses stuck IF slaughter was banned. Then she fights for a ban.

She wants ‘others’ to clean up the mess.

Well…that is what has been happening since 2009. The GOA 2008 debate where John Holland and the HSUS rep stated VERY CLEARLYthere were NOT too many unwanted horses. Continue to stop the slaughter and homes would be found

He still repeats the same mantra as if that will change reality

I do not understand why those who oppose slaughter would not have clinics in every state available for very cheap euthanization and rendering.

I do understand “roaming” abattoirs however those are privately owned and operated. The reason most fail is because of a lack of business so that might help if there was no more slaughter…but there is the other side. Who is going to GUARANTY that there will be private abvbatoirs available for EVERYONE who wants to end the life of their horse?

It was well discussed by the Olds Agricultural College paper.

Cost is going to be a major factor for the individual or the american populace.

The individual can have a broker pick the horse up…or can take it to an auction and at least cover the cost of the commission and hauling by the sales price OR they can pay a vet (and hope it is not an HSUS vet if the horse is healthy as they will not put them down)…and pay for burial. Most owners do not have heavy equipment to dig aq hole and bury the horse especially now that a euthanized horse…if consumed by a wild species…can land you in court with fines up to FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS and that also goes for your vet… so you must have rendering or incineration available.

This can be well over $500 in many areas.

For those of us who have seen an euthanization go wrong…there is no guaranty the horse is not going to have an agonizing death and also inflict injuries upon itself before it dies.

The Anti crowd are also UNABLE to give a guaranty like they are demanding

[JGHIRETIRE]

But there is no abuse remember?? How can you regulate that which does not exist?? :winkgrin:

[QUOTE=luvmytbs;7129395]
It “plays into the hands of AR groups”?

So are we, the ones for animal welfare, expected to stop calling out the abuse and neglect and sit on our hands and just let it go on, as some (not naming anyone, LOL) would like us to do.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN !!![/QUOTE]

[Fairfax]

Rescues abuse horses and we have all read about the most recent where horses have been sick, not presented as they were etc.

There have been other rescues where horses have been seized.

We are now hearing about rescues that are quietly dumping horses at auctions before the upcoming winter and high feed costs

We are aware that DEFHR collects millions of dollars from donations and yet they also kill horses…even healthy ones because they are not a sanctuary.

Should ALL rescues be banned based on the very small sampling of bad apples? Or those who present themselves one way and behave in another?

[Fairfax]

What I find ironic…this anti crowd complain about government funded inspectors…and yet…they want to ban slaughter AND transportation out of the country to slaughter the horses which means the tax payer is going to have to cough up a lot of money OR THEY ARE GOING TO TAX the heck out of every horse owner…demand license fees, charge for breeding and in that manner, they will eliminate breeders and reduce owners until they have achieved their goal…and they can always claim.oh my…we NEVER envisioned this as an outcome

[jetsmom]

[QUOTE=Fairfax;7129426]
What I find ironic…this anti crowd complain about government funded inspectors…and yet…they want to ban slaughter AND transportation out of the country to slaughter the horses which means the tax payer is going to have to cough up a lot of money OR THEY ARE GOING TO TAX the heck out of every horse owner…demand license fees, charge for breeding and in that manner, they will eliminate breeders and reduce owners until they have achieved their goal…and they can always claim.oh my…we NEVER envisioned this as an outcome[/QUOTE]

Or for a novel idea, the horse’s OWNER can be responsible for selling, giving away, chemically euthing, shooting, donating to a big cat sanctuary or hunt, donating to a college, donating to a vet school or keeping the horse.
There are a bunch of options costing little to nothing. And the elephant in the room, is that if that same “unwanted” horse coliced or broke a leg, they would HAVE to do something…call a vet, or shoot. So if the people that use the horse slaughter system aren’t abusive, greedy, uncaring people, then what would they do in that circumstance? So if selling to slaughter were no longer an option, then why can’t they do what they would have done in the instance above? And for the TRULY RARE case, where they just don’t have a dime, a bullet is almost free. Slaughtering and eating your own horse is allowed throughout the country. Someone that poor probably could use a freezer full of meat. And if they aren’t boarding, they are probably somewhere where they have land/hunters/people that know how to kill a large animal and dress it.

[Nikki]

I don’t get it. What is so horrible about horse slaughter? If the new plants are designed for horses, then what’s the freaking problem?

Don’t they have holding pens with water and hay bales?

Why can’t we use this as source of food to feed the hungry?

Oh, and if Obama is coming to save they day, think again. He signed the law restoring horse slaughter.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/30/obama-congress-restore-us-horse-slaughter-industry/

[up-at-5]

[QUOTE=Bluey;7129227]
" … “you and your ilk”?:eek:[/QUOTE]

In modern use, ilk is used in phrases such as of his ilk, of that ilk, to mean ‘type’ or ‘sort.’ The use arose out of a misunderstanding of the earlier, Scottish use in the phrase of that ilk, where it means ‘of the same name or place.’ For this reason, some traditionalists regard the modern use as incorrect.[B] It is, however, the only common current use and is now part of standard English.

[/B]

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=jetsmom;7129505]
Or for a novel idea, the horse’s OWNER can be responsible for selling, giving away, chemically euthing, shooting, donating to a big cat sanctuary or hunt, donating to a college, donating to a vet school or keeping the horse.
There are a bunch of options costing little to nothing. And the elephant in the room, is that if that same “unwanted” horse coliced or broke a leg, they would HAVE to do something…call a vet, or shoot. So if the people that use the horse slaughter system aren’t abusive, greedy, uncaring people, then what would they do in that circumstance? So if selling to slaughter were no longer an option, then why can’t they do what they would have done in the instance above? And for the TRULY RARE case, where they just don’t have a dime, a bullet is almost free. Slaughtering and eating your own horse is allowed throughout the country. Someone that poor probably could use a freezer full of meat. And if they aren’t boarding, they are probably somewhere where they have land/hunters/people that know how to kill a large animal and dress it.[/QUOTE]

Well, some still don’t get it, that horse slaughter is one more CHOICE for those that have the kind of horse that can be use that one more time thru that process.

You know, as humans have evolved doing, as we have done for millennia, as we still do in all of the world that has horses to use.

Why?

Because it is the sensible thing to do, to use any and all natural, renewable resources that are in this world we live in, including SOME horse thru the slaughter process.

Only animal rights extremist, insisting on eliminate all uses of animals by humans as their “cause of the moment”, as if that made any sense in this world, would think that now we need to BAN horse slaughter and all other they are working so furiously for.:rolleyes:

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=up-at-5;7129544]
In modern use, ilk is used in phrases such as of his ilk, of that ilk, to mean ‘type’ or ‘sort.’ The use arose out of a misunderstanding of the earlier, Scottish use in the phrase of that ilk, where it means ‘of the same name or place.’ For this reason, some traditionalists regard the modern use as incorrect.[B] It is, however, the only common current use and is now part of standard English.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Somehow I don’t buy that is the way you meant it.

I have heard that word used trying to be insulting and in this context, with animal rights extremist becoming obviously frustrated here as they are questioned about how sensible this push to BAN horse slaughter and transport and leaving now 100,000+ unwanted horses, every year, stranded, without any provisions in place, those animal rights extremist are starting again with the personal attacks.

I kind of think that yes, it was meant as an insult.:no:
I will say, maybe not one strong enough to be breaking the “be polite” rule here.

[Sannois]

[QUOTE=Nikki^;7129531]
I don’t get it. What is so horrible about horse slaughter? If the new plants are designed for horses, then what’s the freaking problem?

Don’t they have holding pens with water and hay bales?

Why can’t we use this as source of food to feed the hungry?

Oh, and if Obama is coming to save they day, think again. He signed the law restoring horse slaughter.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/30/obama-congress-restore-us-horse-slaughter-industry/[/QUOTE]
Yes someone who is paying attention! Totally agree Nikki!

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Nikki^;7129531]
I don’t get it. What is so horrible about horse slaughter? If the new plants are designed for horses, then what’s the freaking problem?

Don’t they have holding pens with water and hay bales?

Why can’t we use this as source of food to feed the hungry?

Oh, and if Obama is coming to save they day, think again. He signed the law restoring horse slaughter.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/30/obama-congress-restore-us-horse-slaughter-industry/[/QUOTE]

Obama has several declared animal rights extremist as friends and has put others in high regulatory places as he was asked to pay back favors.

As an example of such animal rights extremist in high government places, see the lady in the IRS as one of the HSUS people in high places and maybe why the IRS never would respond to those asking they investigate the HSUS lobbying activities, that seemed to cross the line non-profits are supposed to hold.

So yes, animal rights extremist will tell him easily what to do and I imagine he will gladly comply.

At the time Obama signed, for whatever move in this play animal rights extremists were counting on, it was in their best interest that he signed that.
Maybe they needed more action, donations were falling and this gave them something again to push against?
Remember, to them this is all they have to do with their lives, play this game, make those millions out of it, throw the power those riches give them around.

If it was not animal rights, it would be some other “save this or that”.
That is what promoters do with their lives, run non-profits, for whatever cause they sign on for and make them successful, if they are good at it and the HSUS has been wildly successful, “save the cute, sad animals” has been a great prop for that.
No one can deny that looking at their financials.

I think Obama doesn’t really care about this, whatever way that wind blows will be fine, he has other bones to pick.

The trouble here, as president, we are ALL his constituents and deserve some consideration.
Helping those animal rights extremist bound and determined to eliminate all uses of animals by humans, well, that just seems a bit extreme for the world we live in.

[up-at-5]

[QUOTE=Bluey;7129549]
Somehow I don’t buy that is the way you meant it.

I have heard that word used trying to be insulting and in this context, with animal rights extremist becoming obviously frustrated here as they are questioned about how sensible this push to BAN horse slaughter and transport and leaving now 100,000+ unwanted horses, every year, stranded, without any provisions in place, those animal rights extremist are starting again with the personal attacks.

I kind of think that yes, it was meant as an insult.:no:
I will say, maybe not one strong enough to be breaking the “be polite” rule here.:p[/QUOTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3OVaCDLc9M
Paranoia, it`s how you roll. Give a listen. The words suit.Not all of them, of course:lol:

[Fairfax]

I remember viewing a little flick called Mean Girls. I think up at five “and her ilk” have similar times in their lives.

Horse ownership, responsible.

Well selling is a legal way. Are you saying a cuban can’t buy a horse at auction in Florida because they may take it home and try and kill it…may take five or six shots…and then eat it?

Auctions ARE NOT AGAINST THE LAW

THIS is the new agenda of the AR group. Eliminate ALL ways EXCEPT those approved by them, to remove a horse from your ownership.

Has anyone on this board ever gone bankrupt? Has anyone on this board lost all of their money when they lost their job…and they tried to sell, then give away the horse and no takers?

Look at the person on this board…and the problems she has experienced.
Look at cheap horses and FREE horses on Craigs List

Putting your head in dark places and covering your ears is EXACTLY what John Holland does…he CLAIMS there are homes for every horse.

Why can people not sell their horse at auction, let it go to slaughter where they ARE FED until their time is up…and then have their manes to guts be used for useful saleable products. ???

This is not greedy. This is common sense…if you have no money…can’t look after your horse and can even cover the costs and not hyave to pay for a vet…drugs…disposal because the horse is NOW a CONTAMINENT…when they can just send it to an auction…well…you are an AR agenda person if you are trying to deny that step.

Betonbill had a question NONE of you have answered. If the horse is going to be rendered…why can they not slaughter it and send it to that facility…Transport the horses from the sale to the kill plant for rendering. That way it is NOT for human consumption so who cares what drugs are in it…

NONE OF YOU have touched this question.

[Fairfax]

[QUOTE=Nikki^;7129531]
I don’t get it. What is so horrible about horse slaughter? If the new plants are designed for horses, then what’s the freaking problem?

Don’t they have holding pens with water and hay bales?

Why can’t we use this as source of food to feed the hungry?

Oh, and if Obama is coming to save they day, think again. He signed the law restoring horse slaughter.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/30/obama-congress-restore-us-horse-slaughter-industry/[/QUOTE]

Why? Control. Also using the “Horse caught in the kill pen” raises a lot of money for rescues.

They complain about drugs in horses as if they truly care about a Swiss, Fancaphone, Netherlander etc… but then…they refuse to answer a question as to RENDERING…the horse must be killed…should not use chemicals to contaminate ground water or soil…so they should be killed and shipped and it is EXPENSIVE…Hiring someone to kill your horse IF it is legal…many counties don’t allow it without POLICE presence or an animal control offier who charges to observe…then the price to haul it away can be as high as three hundred dollars depending on where you are…

So…why not have a facility that dead bolts them or shoots them in the head and then has them rendered…

You won’t get a okay answer from this group because that has eliminated their battle cry…no horses eaten…now they expose their agenda when it becomes…you can not kill your horse unless WE APPROVE

[up-at-5]

Bluey, report me and FF to the mods for using ILK!!!

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=up-at-5;7129636]
Bluey, report me and FF to the mods for using ILK!!![/QUOTE]

Oh, didn’t you know? It’s only a personal attack if it’s directed at the Slaughteristas. At least that’s the world according to Bluey.

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=Fairfax;7129606]
Why? Control. Also using the “Horse caught in the kill pen” raises a lot of money for rescues.

They complain about drugs in horses as if they truly care about a Swiss, Fancaphone, Netherlander etc… but then…they refuse to answer a question as to RENDERING…the horse must be killed…should not use chemicals to contaminate ground water or soil…so they should be killed and shipped and it is EXPENSIVE…Hiring someone to kill your horse IF it is legal…many counties don’t allow it without POLICE presence or an animal control offier who charges to observe…then the price to haul it away can be as high as three hundred dollars depending on where you are…

So…why not have a facility that dead bolts them or shoots them in the head and then has them rendered…

You won’t get a okay answer from this group because that has eliminated their battle cry…no horses eaten…now they expose their agenda when it becomes…you can not kill your horse unless WE APPROVE[/QUOTE]

Eliminating “horses caught in the kill pen” would put those questionable rescues (actually brokers masquerading as rescues) right out of business. I say that would be a positive outcome.

I have no problem with a horse being killed in a rendering plant as long as it is done HUMANELY, which means you can’t have a sped up assembly line, inhumane transport, inhumane pens, etc. Owner brings the horse to the plant, plant puts down horse humanely and then its dead body (notice the focus on DEAD, not just insensible and hung to have its throat cut and drained of blood) rendered.

As long as it doesn’t get into the food supply, why on earth would a sensible person have a problem with that? The devil is in the details though, as always.

[Fairfax]

and yet…no answer to Beton bills question.

Since you are against slaughter for human consumption…if they are rendered after wouldn’t that end the issue? That would mean they would still need to be killed and since all horses can not be petted while this is occuring it is obvious they would need a facility to hold them while they are bolted or injected

Who would cover the cost of shipping them to rendering? Right now…that is the cost for the slaughter plant for those horses deemed not suitable to be slaughtered for human consumption.

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=Fairfax;7129660]
and yet…no answer to Beton bills question.

Since you are against slaughter for human consumption…if they are rendered after wouldn’t that end the issue? That would mean they would still need to be killed and since all horses can not be petted while this is occuring it is obvious they would need a facility to hold them while they are bolted or injected

Who would cover the cost of shipping them to rendering? Right now…that is the cost for the slaughter plant for those horses deemed not suitable to be slaughtered for human consumption.[/QUOTE]

Personal responsibility. You own it, you’re responsible for it.

Group transport and group holding is a large part of the inhumane aspect of horse slaughter. It’s not just the chemicals, it’s the process as well.

You know that, but you just love to play word games. I’m done playing, in any case, for the moment.

[Fairfax]

[QUOTE=LauraKY;7129658]
Eliminating “horses caught in the kill pen” would put those questionable rescues (actually brokers masquerading as rescues) right out of business. I say that would be a positive outcome.

I have no problem with a horse being killed in a rendering plant as long as it is done HUMANELY, which means you can’t have a sped up assembly line, inhumane transport, inhumane pens, etc. Owner brings the horse to the plant, plant puts down horse humanely and then its dead body (notice the focus on DEAD, not just insensible and hung to have its throat cut and drained of blood) rendered.

As long as it doesn’t get into the food supply, why on earth would a sensible person have a problem with that? The devil is in the details though, as always.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think you get the pictrure. The rendering plant IS A BUSINESS. They take in DEAD animals. Therefore they would need to set up a chute where the horse could be killed. They would need to have a vet administer killer contaminate drugs to the horse…so they would need to backlog so they could have him there and kill perhaps fifty in a day

From you answer I KNOW you have never been to a rendering facility.

They still have to be killed…and economics make it clear…the vet is going to be paid for his drugs and services…it is ILLEGAL in ALL states to have those drugs administered by anyone but a vet.

Lets see…a private owner arrives at the plant with three horses jammed inside a two horse trailer. They are herded into a chute and roped because two of them have not been handled. The vet must have them secured while he tries over and over to inject the needle into the vein. The horse dies a VIOLENT overdosed death and THAT will be a common senerio

They are going to need chutes, killers…it is the very same as a slaughter plant with more grief…not everyone is going to be able to transport their one pony to the rendering plant. If they are in a jam and do not have a trailer…meat brokers will pick the horse/s up …not so for rendering.

Your plan is SLAUGHTER without human consumption…every step is the same…but it is more dangerous AND can not process the number of horses needed. GO to a rendering plant Laura and TELL THEM they are going to have to provide chutes to kill the horses. When they run you off the property…well…you will have your answer They only take ALREADY DEAD HORSES…

The rendering plant here…it is only about 1 hour from me LAUGHED at me when I suggested it. They are NOT going to build a facility to kill, drain and then render horses.

P.S. why would they have to drain the horse. Rendering isn’t about collection of blood or any products…Dead horse in the pit or put through the grinder.