[QUOTE=wendy;7121067]
I thought the biggest adverse event of banning horse slaughter in the US is that the horses then get shipped long distances, under cruel conditions, to be slaughtered inhumanely in other countries. Banning slaughter in the US doesn’t stop US horses from being slaughtered, it just moves it elsewhere. If it’s here we can regulate it.[/QUOTE]
Yes.
But we can’t if we defund inspectors.
And that’s why we need a full out ban…slaughter in the US and transport to slaughter in Canada and Mexico.
The SAFE Act, Senate Version
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 541
To prevent human health threats posed by the consumption of equines raised in the United States.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 12, 2013
Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
A BILL
To prevent human health threats posed by the consumption of equines raised in the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Safeguard American Food Exports Act of 2013’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that–
(1) unlike cows, pigs, and other domesticated species, horses and other members of the equidae family are not raised for the purpose of human consumption;
(2) equines raised in the United States are frequently treated with substances that are not approved for use in horses intended for human consumption and equine parts are therefore unsafe within the meaning of section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
(3) equines raised in the United States are frequently treated with drugs, including phenylbutazone, acepromazine, boldenone undecylenate, omeprazole, ketoprofen, xylazine, hyaluronic acid, nitrofurazone, polysulfated glycosaminoglycan, clenbuterol, tolazoline, and ponazuril, which are not approved for use in horses intended for human consumption and equine parts are therefore unsafe within the meaning of section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and
(4) consuming parts of an equine raised in the United States likely poses a serious threat to human health and the public should be protected from these unsafe products.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS.
Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding at the end the following:
'(ccc) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section–
'(1) equine parts shall be deemed unsafe under section 409 of this Act;
'(2) equine parts shall be deemed unsafe under section 512 of this Act; and
‘(3) the knowing sale or transport of equines or equine parts in interstate or foreign commerce for purposes of human consumption is hereby prohibited.’
[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;7120915]
Horse neglect DOES NOT relate, and NEVER HAS, to the availability of slaughter. [/QUOTE]
Nope, it sure doesn’t. But never let the complexity of real life get in the way of a good forum argument!! I can’t believe it’s always so predictable – oh wait, yes I can, LMAO!
[QUOTE=Bluey;7119353]
You know that because every single COTHer has told you so?:lol:
Well, let me tell you different, some do contact me, thanking me for telling it like it is, yes, there is more to this than some would like told.
Do you really think that keep adding threads, right now three going on about the animal rights extremist driven BAN horse slaughter agenda, is right for COTH, but if I express my concerns about what is behind that agenda, now I am the one at fault here for bringing this up time and again?:p[/QUOTE]
Hm. If you were “expressing your concerns”, that would be one thing. But you are not. All you do is tell us that everything having to do with slaughter is the doings of animal rights activists and that all our animals are going to be taken away from us.
If there is indeed more to this than is being told, why hasn’t it been said already? When anyone questions you, you either don’t answer, or you play the victim.
[QUOTE=LauraKY;7121133]
And that’s why we need a full out ban…slaughter in the US and transport to slaughter in Canada and Mexico.
The SAFE Act, Senate Version[/QUOTE]
Can I have your address please?
I am assuming you can house and feed 150k horses tomorrow, right!
I don’t see that there is anything that prohibits opening up a rendering facility and working away at all of those “useless” horses. Just can’t slaughter and sell them for “human consumption.”
Ah…now we control the movement of horses. If they are sold Big Sam gets more paperwork…breeders can not export without more paperwork and proof the horse/horses are not going to slaughter. Contrators for rodeos unable to ship to Canada with 50 plus head so that will kill the rodeos because they will not want the additional expense.
Now we see YOUR agenda. Kill the use of all horses…except under YOUR conditions. I suggest you re-read this from the article I posted on Valley thread.
This is from the article written by a lawyer on the Valley thread.
[I]Conclusion
If the European Union no longer wants our horsemeat, and the Asian or South American demand is not enough to sustain the industry, the free market economy will bring an end to horse slaughter. The anti-slaughter advocates agree—indeed, this is the only real economic issue they have latched onto. But if this is something that will go away on its own, why do we need a ban? Your guess is as good as mine. I would think that given the amount of money and time the anti-slaughter camp has spent to bring about anti-slaughter legislation, they can’t stop now. It would be unthinkable to them that they threw away millions trying to force their will upon us, instead of using their time and money to save the adoptable horses that either died of neglect or were inhumanely butchered in Mexico as a result of their efforts.
The ever-presence of the shrill, combative, mostly female anti-slaughter advocates who will stop at nothing to turn public opinion against the slaughterhouses, no matter where they decide to set up shop. If you do not believe these women exist, I urge you to do a Google search for “horse slaughter”, or check out some of the comments to this previous post. While the presence of these “hecklers” is really nothing more than an annoyance, the unwitting or naive in local communities sometimes give in to them—if for no other reason than to shut them up.[/I]
This is now back to my views
This is all about control. People know who I am and how to get a hold of me. Can the same be said for Luvmytbs, or Laura or Angela…based on their ongoing posts in a co-ordinated manner…I would suggest they do have an agenda and they are not honest as to who they represent.
Anyone who would want almost all horse movement to cease UNLESS the government gives approval is clearly not a true horse person. And definitely not a user nor a breeder.
They hide behind their avatar…while demanding accountability from everyone else.
That is not irony. That is dishonesty
[QUOTE=betonbill;7121168]
I don’t see that there is anything that prohibits opening up a rendering facility and working away at all of those “useless” horses. Just can’t slaughter and sell them for “human consumption.”[/QUOTE]
Good point…lets see how they respond…I bet the human consumption has nothing to do with it. They do not want anyone to have the right to send their horse to its demise. They will still claim that slaughter is dangerous and abuse.
Fairfax, I believe you’re right.
[QUOTE=Alagirl;7121153]
Can I have your address please?
I am assuming you can house and feed 150k horses tomorrow, right![/QUOTE]
This bit of “anti-logic” always makes me wonder why, normally reasonable and intelligent people, (who are usually the first ones to lecture everyone else about ‘personal responsibility’) would propose that these horses are anyones responsibility other than their owners/breeders. (?)
Why on earth should anyone opposed to slaughter be responsible for somebody else’s “property”?
[QUOTE=Guilherme;7120722]
Or, in the alternative, remove your rose colored glasses and observe the horrid results of previous bans.
Like Prohibition, the end of equine slaughter promises a brave, new world but in reality will likely mean agony for tens of thousands of horses wasting away in back yards and obscure pastures.
There are things worse than death.
G.[/QUOTE]
Having slaughter available doesn’t prevent abuse or neglect. The largest horse abuse/neglect case in TX happened just outside Dallas when Dallas Crowne SH was open. The horses were owned BY A VET.
In addition, over 5000 horses a year are dumped at the border by the drivers when the horses are rejected from crossing the border to slaughter. It happened here a yr or so ago, when 70 horses shipped from WI, were dumped in the desert at the Santa Teresa Port of Entry. Plus many horses are abused at the auction kill pens (no food, water or medical treatment (google Los Lunas auction…4 horses were down and left struggling more than a day, with auction owner/employees, State Livestock Inspector, doing nothing because they didn’t want to disrupt the auction and the horses were going to slaughter anyways.), and horses are put together in mixed sex groups causing fighting.
We don’t need commercial slaughter. If someone wants to kill, slaughter and eat their own, they are more than welcome to do so. End of problem for them.
[QUOTE=Abercrombie;7121313]
This bit of “anti-logic” always makes me wonder why, normally reasonable and intelligent people, (who are usually the first ones to lecture everyone else about ‘personal responsibility’) would propose that these horses are anyones responsibility other than their owners/breeders. (?)
Why on earth should anyone opposed to slaughter be responsible for somebody else’s “property”?[/QUOTE]
Because they are assuming undue influence what other people can do with their property.
It’s rather simple, isn’t it.
I know, I know…it’s not how the RARA spiel works…
It’s a matter of eating the cake and keeping it as well. So you eat my cake and make me pay for it.
[QUOTE=LauraKY;7121133]
And that’s why we need a full out ban…slaughter in the US and transport to slaughter in Canada and Mexico.
The SAFE Act, Senate Version[/QUOTE]
Do you really believe that will stop horses from being shipped to those places under some other guise and then immediately sent to the packing houses. You apparently don’t live in this world.
[QUOTE=Alagirl;7121376]
Because they are assuming undue influence what other people can do with their property.
It’s rather simple, isn’t it.
I know, I know…it’s not how the RARA spiel works…
It’s a matter of eating the cake and keeping it as well. So you eat my cake and make me pay for it.[/QUOTE]
You can’t send dogs and cats to slaughter. They’re property.
[QUOTE=Alagirl;7121376]
Because they are assuming undue influence what other people can do with their property.
It’s rather simple, isn’t it.
I know, I know…it’s not how the RARA spiel works…
It’s a matter of eating the cake and keeping it as well. So you eat my cake and make me pay for it.[/QUOTE]
huh?
OK, maybe more slowly this time.
1.) I’m opposed to littering. (it’s illegal in most places)
2.) You like littering, because it’s free and easy, and are angry because it’s against the law and you have to pay money to have it hauled away or to take it to the landfill. After all, your garbage is your property, and should be able to do what you want with it: Throw it in the street, dump it in the lake, or turn your front yard into a landfill.
3.) So…because I’m opposed to littering, and it’s against the law, how does limiting your options to dispose of your garbage, make your garbage my responsibility?
(I’m betting the response to this will involve lots of letters like RARA, HSUS, PETA, AARP, NFL, and UFO’s, but will once again miss the point entirely)
[QUOTE=LauraKY;7121133]
And that’s why we need a full out ban…slaughter in the US and transport to slaughter in Canada and Mexico.
The SAFE Act, Senate Version[/QUOTE]
That bill is so full of holes, I would be surprised who would support it.:rolleyes:
Saying that in the media is fearmongering and yes, the public will wonder when hearing that.
Stating that with a straight face when defending that bill, well, I expect there are those listening that have a bit higher IQ than just sitting there and swallowing that nonsense as a reason for a BAN.
Of course, there are other reasons in politics to support any one strange or irrational bill than if it makes sense.
If that matters, that we will never know.
Not “all”, not even “many” of the horses that go to slaughter are given those medications and that is what testing protocols are for.:yes:
Definitively no feral or reservation horse has had medications.
That is just one more animal rights extremist poor excuse for a bill to try to hoodwink the ignorant and gullible into agreeing to their BAN horse slaughter agenda.:no:
See Bluey when you start talking this way - that everyone that doesn’t quite agree with you is ignorant and gullible? If someone remotely sorta kinda maybe agreed with you?? You just shot yourself and your argument in the foot?? Because you are so condescending?? You really don’t get that??
[QUOTE=Bluey;7122053]
That bill is so full of holes, I would be surprised who would support it.:rolleyes:
Saying that in the media is fearmongering and yes, the public will wonder when hearing that.
Stating that with a straight face when defending that bill, well, I expect there are those listening that have a bit higher IQ than just sitting there and swallowing that nonsense as a reason for a BAN.
Of course, there are other reasons in politics to support any one strange or irrational bill than if it makes sense.
If that matters, that we will never know.
Not “all”, not even “many” of the horses that go to slaughter are given those medications and that is what testing protocols are for.:yes:
Definitively no feral or reservation horse has had medications.
That is just one more animal rights extremist poor excuse for a bill to try to hoodwink the ignorant and gullible into agreeing to their BAN horse slaughter agenda.:no:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JGHIRETIRE;7122086]
See Bluey when you start talking this way - that everyone that doesn’t quite agree with you is ignorant and gullible? If someone remotely sorta kinda maybe agreed with you?? You just shot yourself and your argument in the foot?? Because you are so condescending?? You really don’t get that??[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, those not pushing the animal rights extremist driven agenda to BAN horse slaughter would read that nodding in agreement.
It depends on which side of the fence one is if what those on the other side say “sounds condescending”.:yes:
Not really but keep on keeping on - just stay stuck on that one - it’s working for you right?
[QUOTE=jetsmom;7121345]
Having slaughter available doesn’t prevent abuse or neglect. The largest horse abuse/neglect case in TX happened just outside Dallas when Dallas Crowne SH was open. The horses were owned BY A VET.
In addition, over 5000 horses a year are dumped at the border by the drivers when the horses are rejected from crossing the border to slaughter. It happened here a yr or so ago, when 70 horses shipped from WI, were dumped in the desert at the Santa Teresa Port of Entry. Plus many horses are abused at the auction kill pens (no food, water or medical treatment (google Los Lunas auction…4 horses were down and left struggling more than a day, with auction owner/employees, State Livestock Inspector, doing nothing because they didn’t want to disrupt the auction and the horses were going to slaughter anyways.), and horses are put together in mixed sex groups causing fighting.
We don’t need commercial slaughter. If someone wants to kill, slaughter and eat their own, they are more than welcome to do so. End of problem for them.[/QUOTE]
Of course it doesn’t!!! No one with half a brain claims otherwise.
What the slaughter option does is permit people who can no longer keep a horse (for what ever reason) the opportunity to remove it from the current population at no cost to them (and perhaps even a modest gain). Face the fact that some horse owners face hard times and coming up with several hundred dollars for professional euthanasia and carcass disposal is a non-starter.
This will not deal with “hoarders,” but they are likely a minority (and a small one at that; folks tend to hoard cats or dogs, not horses). Indeed, the slaughter option would give rescues a viable channel to take care of their surplus animals.
The FACT that people are abandoning animals in large numbers is a BIG HINT that commercial slaughter is desperately needed.
G.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
