When slaughter is banned;

Think what you choose Larkspur I don’t see where I contradicted myself at all. Nor have I said we need more laws in the slaughter industry to improce conditions. I did say we need better equipment for horse slaughter rather then use cattle equipment but no new laws.

Nor do I think we need new laws for transport if the ones on the books now are enforced they will do just fine. But its no mystery that there not. So why make even more laws as this bill does but not in any way does it mention how they will be enforced or where the money comes from to enforce them?

Well, perhaps I misunderstood, but you certainly implied all of the above. Perhaps you might clarify your views?

[QUOTE=county;1870223]
I never said slaughter didn’t have differant equipment for differant species. But why did we fught to chance the process for say cattle and not ban it? [/QUOTE]

What did you mean about “fighting to change the process for cattle.” I guess I assumed you meant fighting for tougher regulations.

How would you suggest getting things changed? By asking nicely, saying “pretty please?”

Are you implying you would you get behind a bill that did have plans?

1: Changing equipment and training not regulations.

2: The attitude isn’t worth wasting time with a response

3: As I’ve said before yes a plan with some thought from both sides of the issue and not any " because we say so" attitude and you’d get many more people to work at a bill. But " plans " from one side? No then I wouldn’t unless the anti side really came up with something much differant then they have the last 40 years.

[QUOTE=county;1870350]
1: Changing equipment and training not regulations.[/QUOTE]

By whose initiative?

2: The attitude isn’t worth wasting time with a response

Because you don’t like my attitude, or because you have no idea?
So, it is okay for you to be a smartass, but not for me? Just keeping track of the “rules.”

3: As I’ve said before yes a plan with some thought from both sides of the issue and not any " because we say so" attitude and you’d get many more people to work at a bill. But " plans " from one side? No then I wouldn’t unless the anti side really came up with something much differant then they have the last 40 years.

And who would be participating on the pro-slaughter side and what on earth would be their motivation?

[QUOTE=alysheba;1868739]
I believe the ban will force breeders to be more responsible. I have already seen the market for the Arab horse dropping and because of it the Arab breeders I know only bred their most valuable lines this year. One breeder I know left 7 of her 9 mares open because she still has 3 horses left over from last year and won’t send them to auction. Many farms have reduced their breedings and are even selling off their breeding stock.

I’m in favor of creating horse related activities in prisions and creating equestrian programs in public schools. If public schools offered equestrian programs you can bet a large percentage of young America would catch the horse bug and carry it on through their life, creating future horse owners (and COTHers :wink: ). It would also create jobs for horse people (instructors, trainers, etc).

I also believe that a lot of horse owners don’t take enough responsibility in making sure ALL their horses are well trained and broke to ride. We have an amazing Arab mare at the rescue, she is BEAUTIFUL! But month after month she sits there…why? Because she is 17 yrs old and never broke to ride. She was a broodmare. Now, if she was 17 yrs old and broke clear, she would have been out of there in a minute. I’ve said it before and I will say it again-BREAK ALL YOUR HORSES TO RIDE!! And keep them ridden on a regular basis so if “life” goes haywire and you have to sell your horses, they will be more marketable. Most rescues don’t have the money to pay trainers to come in and break all the broodmares that come thru. Bless the ones who volunteer to.[/QUOTE]

As long as we are posting on Arabians, take a look over on the Black Horse forum. One person asked for help to rescue a mare going to the kill farm. They posted pictures and this poor purebred Spanish bred Import mare standing in front of DEAD horses, decaying in the background. What the hell is going on in Texas. :o How can you just have dead horses lying on the ground, long time dead, with live horses being shuffled in the same area. The picture made me ill.

One post and within one day, an entire forum saved this horse. I have never seen people move so fast as on that forum. Money, food, vet bills paid, it was unbelievable.
But the fact remains, someone had no regard for this lovely mare who was saved AT THE LAST MINUTES of her life. People please, don’t just throw those Arab’s away, there are many who would take these unwanted horses
and find a place for them in life.

The prison in Huntsville TX has a huge herd of horses that the prisoners work with. Not sure where the horses come from but quite a nice looking herd.

Another issue is the problem of breeding mares who have proven nothing of their worth beyond the ability to breathe and procreate. Unless we are breeding solely for numbers there should be some process of deciding what animals should be allowed to pass on their bloodlines (same goes for people, dogs etc. and in all species we end up with unwanted, abused and abandoned).

If a mare is not broken to saddle, nor trained to do much of anything as far as I can see, why are we breeding this animal unless merely because it can?

I know some sports breed based upon bloodline (“blood will tell” though my own OTTB is a prime example of that NOT being a truism as far as speed) and it seems to me that those sports are also some of the biggest “feeders” for the slaughter plants.

A WB breeder I have dealt with makes sure that all his broodmares have had showring experience and often they get sent back to the showring between foals to continue to improve their value.

You either want it or you don’t

You can go around and around with what is wrong with the slaughter ban bill but when you get to the heart of it what you will find is that those against it would not support any ban on slaughter. No matter how well you write the bill the bottom line is they believe a person should have the right to send their horses to slaughter instead of having to pay to have them put down.

All the discussions of the micro issues are just a distraction. Don’t believe me? Ask the pro-slaughter people what can be changed in the bill that would make them support it. Ask the AVMA, AQHA and the AAEP; they will tell you they believe it should be an option. So, not much reason to argue about is there! Even if we had a rescue set up in every state fully funded and committed to take in every “unwanted” horse these people would still be against banning slaughter.

A reminder! :wink: The Dallas Crown plant was ordered to shut down by September 30th last I heard. Perhaps this will answer some questions about what will happen to the horses!

[QUOTE=MSP;1870458]
Even if we had a rescue set up in every state fully funded and committed to take in every “unwanted” horse these people would still be against banning slaughter.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for that, MSP. I wish they’d just come out and say so, instead of skirting around the issue and making inane rebuttals to every opposing veiwpoint.

1: By the initiative of peoiple who wanted change.
2; Yes to the first part, no if you want to be a smartass and think I am I have no problems with it. I have no intention of responding to those type questions but if you choose to its certainly your right.
3: Anyone that wanted to and any motivation they have.

So you don’t think theres anti slaughter people that no matter what theres no way they would settle for anything less then a 100% slaughter ban? It works both ways.

Some people think a slaughter ban violates their property rights.

[QUOTE=county;1870551]
So you don’t think theres anti slaughter people that no matter what theres no way they would settle for anything less then a 100% slaughter ban? It works both ways.[/QUOTE]

We are not the ones picking apart the slaughter ban bill! :wink:

Exactly.

May I remind those of you who are tired of beating your heads against the outhouse wall of the pro-slaughter people’s reasoning, that there is great satisfaction in opting to use the “ignore” button available in your profile?

Simply insert the user name of the person you no longer want to entertain, and PRESTO, the verbiage is gone until you someday feel masochistic and allow those posts to appear on your screens again, in all their glory.

A few years ago I was not anti slaughter. I had horses but went along with the reteric that it was a necessary evil. So I went along with it.

Then I read a Paper on disputing much of the reasoning behind keeping slaughter in this country. Made me think about what was really going on. So I took it upon myself to explore and research. I’m a fairly practical person- kept emotions out of it. It’s not hard to figure out who’s on what side and why and all the trivial tangents thrown out to confuse the bottom line.

Property rights? Our property rights are infringed every single day on more important issues. This is not about property rights.

If I can solidly convince someone ‘on the fence’ to really… truly… open minded… study the issue before us without emotion, than I feel I have accomplished something because I know without a DOUBT that if you explore the issue- know the issue- 90% of horse owning people are going to truly find out that it is a wasted industry and not in the best interests of the equine community or equine industry growth.

Actually it was royally ticking me off that during the congress debate- the backers of the anti-slaughter bill talked on visions of horsey nobility and grandeur and feel good symbolism. I wanted them to cut to the chase and get down to the facts and challenging the misnomers of the issue. (Virginia and New York did the best on that!)

So do I feel like I’m beating my head against the wall? Yeah someties I do- especially when the same people throw out the same REFUTED garbage (and that goes for both sides BTW) HOWEVER I’m hoping it will open some eyes and maybe a few people can sit back at their keyboard and say “maybe things just aren’t what they seems- I’m going to check it why”.

BTW- I don’t think the bill is perfect. It’s a start and I’m going to support that start. I’m going to keep on sending my opinions and concerns- this time to senators and those group providing their expertise in the writing.

Amen, Super!

One of the reasons I have asked questions of the pro-slaughter folks is that I genuinely want to understand their reasoning. So far I have heard nothing solid or credible, other than fears about more abuse and neglect, which, while a possibility, have no basis in fact.

That said, I do think this thread is nearing the end of its useful life. I recommend humane euthanasia, followed by cremation.

I never understood the “abuse/neglect” theory. If they weren’t abused or neglected before they went to sale…why would they be abused/neglected if they weren’t sold at auction and had to return home??? All the horses I have seen bound for slaughter were in fairly good condition to begin with. Crips. If the person is that broke that they can’t feed the horse they will probably just give the horse away! Even if there are some cases of neglect, you can’t ignore evil for fear of a few casualties! That’s completely illogical.

If it passes the rescues won’t be overburdened, in fact, in time it will free up a lot of space to start rescuing the TRUE abused horses, instead of having to save the ones bound for slaughter. You can bet if this passes there will be watchdog groups out there making sure the would-be slaughter horses are being taken care of properly. The true backers of this bill know who the repeat offenders are (individual and breed-wise) and I believe they will be watched.

All of this of course, is just my opinion.

While I’m sure some people have never heard a good reason from pro slaughter people why it should not be banned. Beleive it or not theres many people that feel they haven’t heard a good reason why it should be. Does anyone actually think this is a one way deal?

Here is a great editorial, I believe this man may be my new hero, he hit on every point.

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/hanchette220.html

MOUNTAIN VIEWS: BILL TO END SLAUGHTER OF AMERICAN HORSES HAS A FEW HURDLES TO JUMP
By John Hanchette
OLEAN – With the dramatic capture and extensive news coverage of longtime regional fugitive Ralph “Bucky” Phillips on Friday, those readers among you who’ve been following the horse slaughter controversy on these pages may have missed a big development.

Just before the weekend, the House of Representatives voted to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption. If the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act gets through the unpredictable Senate, and President George Bush signs it into law, it would probably shut down the three foreign-owned and much-criticized horse abattoirs in the United States – two in Texas and one in Illinois. More than 90,000 U.S. horses annually – from pets to plugs to racers to draft to show stock to cow-chasers – were killed in the trio of plants in recent years.

Just before the vote, former House member Charles Stenholm, a Texas Democrat and currently the powerful lobbyist for groups opposed to the slaughter prohibition, predicted “a very close vote – there’s no question about that. … I believe we will have the votes to defeat H.R. 503.”

Stenholm was once famous for his accurate congressional vote-counting abilities, but no longer. He and fellow opponents got thundered. The final count was 263-146 in favor of banning the slaughter of American horses for overseas dinner plates – mostly in France and Japan, but also in Holland, Italy and Switzerland. Even famous champions of Triple Crown events are not immune. Japanese gourmands – it is considered a delicacy there – actually devoured Ferdinand, a popular mid-1980s Kentucky Derby winner.

Jubilant backers of the slaughter prevention bill should not be complacent, nor even optimistic. The Senate has not scheduled action on a similar version, and Congress intends to finish its current session by the end of this month, come hell or high water.

It was the incredible late-summer phone and mail bombardment of on-the-fence House members by bill-backers from humane groups, thoroughbred owners, breeders and everyday horse-lovers that seems to have turned the tide and frightened vote-counting members of Congress up for November re-election that they might offend significant numbers of constituents.

Even if it clears the Senate, recall that Bush is a Texan (where two of the profitable slaughterhouses are located) with lots of cattle-rancher friends, and while he rarely vetoes legislative proposals, he may well kill this one with a stroke of his pen.

It will probably take a similar avalanche of calls, letters, e-mails and communications – aimed at senators and the White House – to create the law.

One would think cattlemen would actually support the bill in that it cuts down on the gustatory competition as far as meat is concerned. The somewhat idealistic and mild bill, after all, would not actually outlaw the killing and eating of horses in general.

The wording only prohibits the shipping, transportation, donation or selling of horses for slaughter for human consumption. Diligent black market entrepreneurs can find a way around it, I’m sure. If the French still have their hearts set upon it, dealers could soon be trading horsemeat for heroin. (See 30-year-old movie “The French Connection” with Gene Hackman.)

However, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, American Cattleman’s Association and similar ranch groups spent good money to hire Stenholm to oppose the ban, and beef cattle interests actually forwarded the ridiculous argument during floor debate (through friendly representatives) that this prohibition would be the “first step toward forced vegetarianism.”

My ribs are splitting. As if that could happen in this country of devout carnivores, of whom I am one, I might add. I love a good steak, and so do many of the other ban-supporters who contact me. While the vote was being reported, I was actually in a restaurant here (The Beef ‘n’ Barrel) with horse-respecting friends consuming delicious roast beef on kimmelweck sandwiches.

Opponents of the bill also argued its passage would subject unwanted horses to “neglect and cruelty” because they would no longer be slaughtered when considered unloved or useless. It is to laugh. It is to cry. This lame argument reminds me of the same loonball logic forwarded by generals during the Vietnam War when American troops under orders were routinely and successfully torching South Vietnam villages in order to “save them” for the populace of our allies.

Riiiight. Let’s kill these animals to keep them from future “cruelty.”

The slaughterhouses in question don’t exactly treat these horses to a walk in the park, you know – even as they end their existence. They employ Cruelty Hall of Fame methods.

First, the trusting animals are routinely trucked long distances to their common fate in trailers designed for smaller species – cramped trailers that don’t allow the horses to fully stand up or even keep their balance. They often arrive at the plants with broken legs and multiple bruises. Bill-backers showed gruesome photos of horses with faces cut, contused, abraded, bloodied and swollen from banging into parts of the conveyance.

Second, the workers who are supposed to stun the creatures into an unconscious state with bolt guns so they won’t feel being torn apart are often either drunk or uncaring, according to federal inspectors, so their aim is without result or the animal rears or shies, but the assembly line does not stop. That would cut into profit, don’t you know?

The horse is snagged around one hind leg and quickly hoisted into the air upside down, frequently still shrieking, thrashing and contorting to escape. No matter. A butcher with an electric chain saw cuts the animal – often alive and still conscious – into quarters.

And the beat goes on. Now, all you stalwart horse slaughter fans who have been smart enough to e-mail me with imaginative name-calling and scabrous insults (yet not brave enough to identify yourselves or vituperate me to my face), use a little Internet ingenuity and surf around until you find available pictures and video of all this.

An equally stupid urging for defeat was offered by Colorado Democrat John Salazar, who lamented the result of this legislation would make our cherished American citizens subsidize the saving of their horses because they’d have to pay more taxes to enforce the ban. This laughable attempt at emotional blackmail was met with observations that they already are subsidizing the slaughter they don’t want through unfair taxes. One of the foreign plants, because of poorly written tax forgiveness laws that are supposed to encourage foreign investment, paid a mere $5 in taxes last year.

Other feeble arguments in opposition include the equally specious labeling of this legislation as an attack on personal property rights (if you treat your “property” like this, you don’t deserve to attain it in the first place), and the loss of butchering jobs it will engender.

Don’t hand me that. If you are one of the few 200 or so total workers employed at all three horse-kill plants, here’s the solution: Too bad, find another job! (You probably didn’t like this one, anyway. And if you did, you can be out of work forever, for all I care.)

Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer bitched that House leaders were wasting time arguing about horses when they should be attending to bills that affect humans. This, in a chamber whose pampered members actually work a fraction of the year, devote most of their energy to getting re-elected, have done practically nothing for the good of the order in two years, and spend enough hours to easily constitute several weeks’ worth of precious time on the House floor cynically praising each other in polite posturing and blowing verbal wet kisses to colleagues they deride and poke all manner of fun at in private conversation.

The House debate was attended by celebrities backing the bill, among them movie star Bo Derek. Willie Nelson, the country immortal, has been raising support for the bill, and Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens paid for a national survey that reflected impressive national support for the ban by Americans.

Finally, another angle has been mentioned increasingly in this now-national debate. Honest veterinarians will tell you horses, from farm animals to thoroughbreds, are routinely shot up and pilled with an amazing variety of muscle relaxants, pain relievers, narcotics, anti-inflammatories, stimulants, diuretics and other medicines – some of which are highly carcinogenic and some of which trigger other illnesses in humans besides cancer. It is actually illegal under existing law to ship such contaminated meats abroad.

If the incredibly inefficient U.S. Department of Agriculture were doing its job, it would already have put the horse-killing plants out of business long ago, but the USDA has already pulled off clever and successful end runs around previous congressional directives to do so. I wrote about this extensively earlier this year. Whether from my columns or medical sources or somewhere else, the French are catching onto this. It is now very, very difficult, report Americans who have been to France recently, to find horse meat in French restaurants – where it was touted and sold unabashedly for years. You can, however, still purchase horsemeat in unregulated and uninspected butcher shops there.

Perhaps the European horsemeat profiteers who are bemoaning the prospective loss of income in their American plants can go home, put on the white aprons, sharpen the cleaver, and make a credible – if less lucrative – living.

Just can’t take someone serious who talks about how terrable slaughter is while stuffing his face with beef steak. They all get killed and hauled the same way.