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

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;7129938]
Transportation over long distances in a humane fashion is possible. Horses have been transported over long distances since trailers and vans were invented.
-An enforcement issue.
Ignoring injuries/no vet care… how about offloading when discovered at weigh checkpoints, fine and euth+call the renderer, loss is a cost of doing business; no one wants the delay so will be less likely to load up injured or dangerous animals likely to injure others.
-An enforcement issue.
No food/water… Many people feed horses 2 x daily or 3 x daily. At 1 1/2 hrs access to hay/water per feed time plus 1/2 hr loading and unloading that leaves 6 hrs drive time or about 350 miles on the interstate. At 2 stops daily it would be 10 hours drive time or 550 miles. Again, additional cost as a part of doing business; and would require waystations or rental of auction lots to offload, etc.
That still leaves 1000 miles in 2 days as perfectly possible and humane.

As to charging to pick up, carcasses are on a removal deadline and the owner must have it removed. Of course that means it will cost$.

Apparently receiving money for a live horse is bad, while paying money to have a dead horse hauled off is good. I don’t agree that that should be legislated because of your choice.

If it became law that all horses must be killed by gunshot/humane bolt instead of euth; and taken to facility X for processing instead of burial, incineration, or composting for moral reasons, rather than environmental safety ones, that would also be a bad law.

Enforcement is now very poor; that means that part of end of life sequence for horses should be fixed, not a ban on the entire scenario.

You have already said some agree ‘it could be made humane if…’
Banning is a choice of solutions, not a moral obligation in order to remain on the side of welfare/anti-welfare.[/QUOTE]

All really good solutions. And if the slaughter houses had a video running with animal welfare advocates monitoring the videos to make sure they were compliant, it would probably work. There’s still the problem of the horse meat in the food supply, a la Europe. But lets say we fix all that.

Who, in this current political climate, is going to pay for the enforcement and monitoring. If you say the slaughter house, then by all means, that’s a solution. If you say the taxpayer…why should we?

It comes back to personal responsibility. You want to own it, breed it? Be responsible for it.

There are very few instances where a person loses everything overnight. They see it coming. If you can afford feed, farrier and vet and/or boarding, you can afford to put the horse down when it’s no longer useful, you no longer want it, you can’t sell it or rehome it. If you can’t afford the preceding, what are you doing with a horse in the first place?

That’s life. Personal responsibility. Don’t want to accept that? Don’t own horses.

[JGHIRETIRE]

I don’t disagree with this. Facilities indeed COULD be designed. It has been said however by Temple Grandin, who has done alot to improve “processed” animals in general, that no one can afford to build a humane horse facility. Everything seems to be a redo of a cattle facility.
Even at that if they took the time to put out the horse correctly -it’s still ok.
Enforcement is indeed another issue. Seems in this economy they need fines so why would they not collect them?

A point that seems to be overlooked is that - at least in my area - rendering companies do not have that much business. It used to be they would do the rounds 2x a week - now it’s only once. There seems to be less use for a rendered animal, I was told because of the euthanasia drugs.

So what will happen if putting your horse down with the drugs becomes an even bigger problem than it is already?

Bute is a whole other issue…

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;7129789]
Horses have been selectively bred to accomodate humans and be trainable to the point of carrying them into battles, or hunt lions, boar or herd cattle (fighting bulls?) for tens of centuries.

People have also designed slaughter facilities for deer, elk and bison, none of which are noted for lack of flight or fight. And deer and elk have long necks, just as horses do. A simple check on google will bring up elk slaughter facilities and raisers, for instance.

My point is that facilities could be successfully designed for horse slaughter if the current models are inadequate.

Yes, transportation is another issue.
Truck inspection at weigh stations within the USA ought to be followed by more fines and closer adherence to the laws on the books. It is an enforcement issue, not necessarily a ‘tougher laws or ban’ issue.[/QUOTE]

[D_BaldStockings]

[QUOTE=LauraKY;7129955]
All really good solutions. And if the slaughter houses had a video running with animal welfare advocates monitoring the videos to make sure they were compliant, it would probably work. There’s still the problem of the horse meat in the food supply, a la Europe. But lets say we fix all that.

Who, in this current political climate, is going to pay for the enforcement and monitoring. If you say the slaughter house, then by all means, that’s a solution. If you say the taxpayer…why should we?

It comes back to personal responsibility. You want to own it, breed it? Be responsible for it.

There are very few instances where a person loses everything overnight. They see it coming. If you can afford feed, farrier and vet and/or boarding, you can afford to put the horse down when it’s no longer useful, you no longer want it, you can’t sell it or rehome it. If you can’t afford the preceding, what are you doing with a horse in the first place?

That’s life. Personal responsibility. Don’t want to accept that? Don’t own horses.[/QUOTE]

So a person is not responsible if they sell a horse beause they will never be sure it might not in future end up on a slaughter truck.

I wholly disagree with that.

And you missed saying ‘can’t sell it or rehome it except through auction or to a kill-buyer’ because it is not about whether the horse is sold, but who the buyer is and whether the horse will die in a manner of YOUR choosing.

You choose no slaughter - for every horse owner.

Which is not as current laws read. You have a moral discussion, not a legal one. It is responsible to find a way to move a horse if you can’t afford it or do not have time to care for it. Limiting the choices to ‘only what I say is right’ hasn’t happened yet.

Accusing others of irresponsibility should come AFTER they fail to legally move the horse on.

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;7130032]
So a person is not responsible if they sell a horse beause they will never be sure it might not in future end up on a slaughter truck.

I wholly disagree with that.

And you missed saying ‘can’t sell it or rehome it except through auction or to a kill-buyer’ because it is not about whether the horse is sold, but who the buyer is and whether the horse will die in a manner of YOUR choosing.

You choose no slaughter - for every horse owner.

Which is not as current laws read. You have a moral discussion, not a legal one. It is responsible to find a way to move a horse if you can’t afford it or do not have time to care for it. Limiting the choices to ‘only what I say is right’ hasn’t happened yet.

Accusing others of irresponsibility should come AFTER they fail to legally move the horse on.[/QUOTE]

So if you can only sell it to a kill buyer, yes…I think that option needs to be off the table. That doesn’t remove any of the other options. If you find a buyer, adopter, rescue, etc…well then the responsibility passes on to them.

Suppose the horse breaks a leg in a pasture accident. You still have to put them down and dispose of the body. If you can’t, won’t or can’t afford to, well then, you shouldn’t have a horse.

Horses are not raised for food in this country and should not be in the food supply. No amount of wishing is going to change that.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;7130032]
So a person is not responsible if they sell a horse beause they will never be sure it might not in future end up on a slaughter truck.

I wholly disagree with that.

And you missed saying ‘can’t sell it or rehome it except through auction or to a kill-buyer’ because it is not about whether the horse is sold, but who the buyer is and whether the horse will die in a manner of YOUR choosing.

You choose no slaughter - for every horse owner.

Which is not as current laws read. You have a moral discussion, not a legal one. It is responsible to find a way to move a horse if you can’t afford it or do not have time to care for it. Limiting the choices to ‘only what I say is right’ hasn’t happened yet.

Accusing others of irresponsibility should come AFTER they fail to legally move the horse on.[/QUOTE]

Well, is that not why this animal rights extremist push to pass all kinds of bills to BAN horse slaughter, one way or another?
Then on to the next and next and next we do with our animals, here horses?

That is the idea, to get new laws on the books that let them demand what everyone else has to do with their animals, to make all so difficult as to eventually eliminate all uses.:no:

Animal rights extremist have learned not to show their hand too much and will find excuses to further their ultimate agenda that sound oh so caring for the horse’s welfare, but if you scratch below that, it is the same agenda, in new concealing clothing.:rolleyes:

[Sannois]

Oh Look another Lather Rinse and repeat thread.
I just do not see why you go on and on about this same thing.
You are not making things better, maybe worse.
Because the same cast of characters post on here all the time talking about the same things, so you are not educating anyone new, either for or against.
Just saying.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Sannois;7130082]
Oh Look another Lather Rinse and repeat thread.
I just do not see why you go on and on about this same thing.
You are not making things better, maybe worse.
Because the same cast of characters post on here all the time talking about the same things, so you are not educating anyone new, either for or against.
Just saying.[/QUOTE]

Yep, we know that, but when others thank you for doing it, saying it helped them understand what is going on, very eye opening, why not?

Remember, one side keeps bringing animal rights extremist propaganda up, the other is just responding to it.
If the one side would not do that, there would not be any need to respond and that would be fine with many, I think.

[Angela_Freda]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;7129938]
Transportation over long distances in a humane fashion is possible. Horses have been transported over long distances since trailers and vans were invented.
-An enforcement issue.
Ignoring injuries/no vet care… how about offloading when discovered at weigh checkpoints, fine and euth+call the renderer, loss is a cost of doing business; no one wants the delay so will be less likely to load up injured or dangerous animals likely to injure others.
-An enforcement issue.
No food/water… Many people feed horses 2 x daily or 3 x daily. At 1 1/2 hrs access to hay/water per feed time plus 1/2 hr loading and unloading that leaves 6 hrs drive time or about 350 miles on the interstate. At 2 stops daily it would be 10 hours drive time or 550 miles. Again, additional cost as a part of doing business; and would require waystations or rental of auction lots to offload, etc.
That still leaves 1000 miles in 2 days as perfectly possible and humane.

As to charging to pick up, carcasses are on a removal deadline and the owner must have it removed. Of course that means it will cost$.

Apparently receiving money for a live horse is bad, while paying money to have a dead horse hauled off is good. I don’t agree that that should be legislated because of your choice.

If it became law that all horses must be killed by gunshot/humane bolt instead of euth; and taken to facility X for processing instead of burial, incineration, or composting for moral reasons, rather than environmental safety ones, that would also be a bad law.

Enforcement is now very poor; that means that part of end of life sequence for horses should be fixed, not a ban on the entire scenario.

You have already said some agree ‘it could be made humane if…’
Banning is a choice of solutions, not a moral obligation in order to remain on the side of welfare/anti-welfare.[/QUOTE]

As with anything and everything, it boils down to $$.

New plants designed for horses cost money to build.
Slow transport with stops for rest and water, cost more than those that fly on through.
More horses on a load/overweight is more cost efficient than running with them not packed in.
Treating injuries and illnesses in the horses one owns, even if you’re a dealer/killbuyer costs $$$

And even with all that above solved, the horses from the US still do not come with documentation of drug ingestion.

What incentive is there for this industry to do anything the ‘right’ way, the more humane way?
Will the plants pay more for it? Will the consumer pay more for it?
There is 0 incentive for these changes to occur.

Which is why over the decades we had plants operating in the US and so many in the industry were ignoring the laws.
Carper has outstanding fines still from an incident YEARS ago.
Rotz does, last I looked.
Moore probably does.
These are just the few dudes I know locally.

Enforcing new laws or existing laws costs $$. Collecting fines costs $$.
And even if enforcement happened and fines were collected and they played fair and humanely… there are still EU banned drugs in the meat of the US horses.

[Angela_Freda]

[QUOTE=Bluey;7130096]
Yep, we know that, but when others thank you for doing it, saying it helped them understand what is going on, very eye opening, why not?

Remember, one side keeps bringing animal rights extremist propaganda up, the other is just responding to it.
If the one side would not do that, there would not be any need to respond and that would be fine with many, I think.:)[/QUOTE]

LOL and some of us use USDA/CFIA/FSIS/EU documentation that you ignore.

[JGHIRETIRE]

This…again.

[QUOTE=Angela Freda;7130143]
LOL and some of us use USDA/CFIA/FSIS/EU documentation that you ignore.[/QUOTE]

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=Angela Freda;7130143]
LOL and some of us use USDA/CFIA/FSIS/EU documentation that you ignore.[/QUOTE]

Heaven forbid she let facts get in the way of her dogma.

[Fairfax]

Animal rights activists should NEVER have the right to have the video or access to it. Period.

I can not think of one facility that would voluntarily allow them to enter the premises.

1. They are NOT THE LAW
2. They are not appointed by the USDA nor are they accountable to them
3. They are not bound by any business confidentiality and who is to say they would not try and sabbatoge trucks and trailers, poison horses…OR contact suppliers or purchasers with lies…heck…lying is what they do best

Be realistic. What airline would allow a terrorist group to depart their planes

The tapes should be available to the government inspectors and the USDA and law officials if there is a reason.

This is NO a legal grow op…this is not an industry that requires over the top regulations OTHER THAN normal procedures.

You…and your friends…can voice your concerns about potatoe farming but you have no right to dictate YOUR demands to them.

Laura…you also do not have the legal nor the moral right to tell anyone what they can own…if they can have kids or not…if they can put Granny in a home…

You can set down realistic guidelines for the nursing home but you can not tell George and Mary that can not ship Granny there.

It makes no difference what happens to the horse once it is dead…it is how it becomes dead that is of importance.

[Fairfax]

[QUOTE=Angela Freda;7130143]
LOL and some of us use USDA/CFIA/FSIS/EU documentation that you ignore.[/QUOTE]

No one is ignoring it…same as I am sure you have read the GOA documentation and also other relevant studies from Ag colleges and universities that do not support your position

Point is…EU MAY have made the claims that it would come into effect July 2013 in all honesty. But they naven’t applie it OR they no longer believe it is a major problem or the 6 months in a feedlot is working for them…don’t forget…the EU reps visit the Canadian slaughter plans all of the time. You don’t nor have you…ever.

[Fairfax]

[QUOTE=Angela Freda;7130141]
As with anything and everything, it boils down to $$.

New plants designed for horses cost money to build.
Slow transport with stops for rest and water, cost more than those that fly on through.
More horses on a load/overweight is more cost efficient than running with them not packed in.
Treating injuries and illnesses in the horses one owns, even if you’re a dealer/killbuyer costs $$$

And even with all that above solved, the horses from the US still do not come with documentation of drug ingestion.

What incentive is there for this industry to do anything the ‘right’ way, the more humane way?
Will the plants pay more for it? Will the consumer pay more for it?
There is 0 incentive for these changes to occur.

Which is why over the decades we had plants operating in the US and so many in the industry were ignoring the laws.
Carper has outstanding fines still from an incident YEARS ago.
Rotz does, last I looked.
Moore probably does.
These are just the few dudes I know locally.

Enforcing new laws or existing laws costs $$. Collecting fines costs $$.
And even if enforcement happened and fines were collected and they played fair and humanely… there are still EU banned drugs in the meat of the US horses.[/QUOTE]

75,000 native horses disagree and I expect that many of the horses I have seen going to slaughter have never had a needle nor a farrier of any type near them. The number of horses that tested positive were so small according to the Canadian government that it would imply that many owners who do inject drugs into their horses do not use slaughter as a means of disposal.

Vet care is not at the top of the list for the horses going to slaughter. A vet program for that horse is not at the top of the list with rare exceptions. If people “are breeding” or “culling” their herds and using slaughter don’t you think they would be aware of a potential no drug policy.

[Fairfax]

p.s. Collecting fines is EASY…You seize the business until they are paid off. You don’t wait for them to go bankrupt. You seize the trucks and they pay the fine to get their truck back. You don’t just issue a ticket and hope all goes well.

[Angela_Freda]

[QUOTE=LauraKY;7130154]
Heaven forbid she let facts get in the way of her dogma.[/QUOTE]

Much easier to keep claiming that all anyone who is anti ever posts are RARA propaganda.
But, in the long run, to those reading, it’s a transparent claim that shows that while the pro side can fight the RaRas, they can’t argue the documentation and facts of the matter from quality sources.

Look at Leo for example, he can hammer home that ONE point that the EU has not, YET, enforced their rulings for drug documentation. [he has made progress in finally admitting that they in fact DID state that they wanted something more than the problematic EID, though I doubt that will last long]
Address the other points? Nope.

[JGHIRETIRE]

Then why do these fines go uncollected???

[QUOTE=Fairfax;7130167]
p.s. Collecting fines is EASY…You seize the business until they are paid off. You don’t wait for them to go bankrupt. You seize the trucks and they pay the fine to get their truck back. You don’t just issue a ticket and hope all goes well.[/QUOTE]

[Angela_Freda]

[QUOTE=Fairfax;7130167]
p.s. Collecting fines is EASY…You seize the business until they are paid off. You don’t wait for them to go bankrupt. You seize the trucks and they pay the fine to get their truck back. You don’t just issue a ticket and hope all goes well.[/QUOTE]

And yet it hasn’t happened, leaving a big fat black mark on the industry you want to protect.

[Angela_Freda]

[QUOTE=Fairfax;7130164]
75,000 native horses disagree and I expect that many of the horses I have seen going to slaughter have never had a needle nor a farrier of any type near them. The number of horses that tested positive were so small according to the Canadian government that it would imply that many owners who do inject drugs into their horses do not use slaughter as a means of disposal.

Vet care is not at the top of the list for the horses going to slaughter. A vet program for that horse is not at the top of the list with rare exceptions. If people “are breeding” or “culling” their herds and using slaughter don’t you think they would be aware of a potential no drug policy.[/QUOTE]

Again you obviously did not open the links I offered that showed that while positive results were low, that is attributable to the very low rate of testing.

G’head, take the 75k native horses… and what will you have to slaughter next year that is as clean? ‘I expect’ isn’t good enough.

[JGHIRETIRE]

That’s a whole other issue - the mustangs…yes I’m sure they are drug free but talk about a hot button issue.
As far as the horses going to slaughter…
Vet care is not at the top of the list for horses going to slaughter?? Have you forgotten thoroughbreds off the track?? The joke is “stable to table in 4 days or less”…

[QUOTE=Fairfax;7130164]
75,000 native horses disagree and I expect that many of the horses I have seen going to slaughter have never had a needle nor a farrier of any type near them. The number of horses that tested positive were so small according to the Canadian government that it would imply that many owners who do inject drugs into their horses do not use slaughter as a means of disposal.

Vet care is not at the top of the list for the horses going to slaughter. A vet program for that horse is not at the top of the list with rare exceptions. If people “are breeding” or “culling” their herds and using slaughter don’t you think they would be aware of a potential no drug policy.[/QUOTE]