When slaughter is banned;

[SweatySaddlepad]

[QUOTE=MSP;1873773]
AQHA UPDATE ON PASSAGE OF H.R. 503

For Immediate Release
September 7, 2006

AMARILLO, TEXAS – Today the agriculture industry, and in particular the horse industry, suffered a blow when Congress passed H.R 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act 263 to 146. The American Quarter Horse Association, along with more than 200 other agriculture and equine groups known as the Horse Welfare Coalition, opposed H.R. 503.
Officials with AQHA and HWC, who were in Washington, D.C., speaking with members of Congress about the negative impact H.R. 503 would have on the industry, expressed disappointment and concern over passage of H.R. 503. AQHA and HWC opposed the bill because of its shortcomings on a number of different fronts.

H.R. 503 does not offer any solutions to the 100,000 unwanted or unusable horses that are sent to slaughter facilities each year and infringes on the rights of all horse owners. Additionally, the bill does not have any oversight measures or guidelines for equine rescue operations that are expected to absorb these horses each year. AQHA supported humane transportation and treatment laws for horses bound for slaughter.

In the end, most members of Congress found it hard to vote against this bill, which was heavily lobbied for by animal rights groups and the Humane Society of the United States. While AQHA does not favor slaughter over other end-of-life options, it does believe it should remain an option for owners.

“We appreciate the hard work of the House Agriculture Committee,” said Tim Case, AQHA Senior Manager of Public Policy. “Our industry owes much gratitude to Representatives Bob Goodlatte (R-VA 6th), who chairs the Ag Committee and Joe Barton (R-TX 6th) chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee. These gentlemen, along with their staffs, truly have the best interest of the agriculture industry and the welfare of horses in mind. We appreciate their work.”

By passing H.R. 503, AQHA and HWC officials believe bottom-end, unemployable and unwanted animals will suffer increased neglect and place an undue burden on state and local governments. The bill now moves on to the Senate.

---

If the AQHA and others really feel that there are 100,000 unwanted horses and they do not favor slaughter over other end-of-life options, then why aren’t they doing something about it?

Last time I checked the AQHA budget report for last year, they had something like 80 million or so in investments. Why don’t they set up rescues in Texas and other states and give a little back like the TB community has. Of course I think it is amusing to assume 100,000 horses that are considered unwanted would all need to be euthanized when we all know from feed lot rescues that many are re-homable, perfectly usable horses! How about finding them new owners instead of killing them![/QUOTE]

Ahh warm and fuzzy, they are all for humane transport and treatment laws, yet they don’t put money into lobbying better enforcement of those laws either. Bottom line AQHA could give a rats behind and not ONE of those who opposes slaughter has EVER said that all the horses will have to be put in rescues. How absurd! I agree with poster that said no matter how this bill read many of you that are pro-slaughter will be no matter what or how the bill read. Property rights? Come on, our rights are far more infringed upon then you know in areas much more sensitive, if your truly worried about that you better be paying far more attention to your personal rights.

[county]

Don’t waste your time with the same old things.

Why not? You on the other side of the issue waste mine and others saying the same old things on the other side of the issue. Do you some how have more rights then others?

Don’t keep coming up with the same things and you’ll find you won’t keep hearing the same things in return.It works two ways.

[MSP]

[QUOTE=county;1873827]
Don’t waste your time with the same old things.

Why not? You on the other side of the issue waste mine and others saying the same old things on the other side of the issue. Do you some how have more rights then others?

Don’t keep coming up with the same things and you’ll find you won’t keep hearing the same things in return.It works two ways.[/QUOTE]

I posted a letter from the AQHA that was dated September 2006, I consider that new. Why don’t you comment in it instead of coming up with your same old spins that do not related to the current discussion!

[county]

Such as the person who stated " if people over seas want to eat horse meat they should eat there own "

Oh wait that person is anti slaughter so you’d never sday the same now would you?

BTW knocking the AQHA is also hardly new here.

[MSP]

[QUOTE=county;1873850]
Such as the person who stated " if people over seas want to eat horse meat they should eat there own "

Oh wait that person is anti slaughter so you’d never sday the same now would you?

BTW knocking the AQHA is also hardly new here.[/QUOTE]

I only have to repeat my self when I am responding to the same old agreements! Notice I havn’t been posting much? It gets a little boring after a while. We have had the same discussions a year ago!

The AQHA has involved itself in this issue and they are the ones who put out a public statement!

[county]

If your bored by all means don’t post that certainly your right.

[MSP]

[QUOTE=SweatySaddlepad;1873814]
Ahh warm and fuzzy, they are all for humane transport and treatment laws, yet they don’t put money into lobbying better enforcement of those laws either. Bottom line AQHA could give a rats behind and not ONE of those who opposes slaughter has EVER said that all the horses will have to be put in rescues. How absurd! I agree with poster that said no matter how this bill read many of you that are pro-slaughter will be no matter what or how the bill read. Property rights? Come on, our rights are far more infringed upon then you know in areas much more sensitive, if your truly worried about that you better be paying far more attention to your personal rights.[/QUOTE]

I agree!
The property rights argument is a little loose IMO. By banning slaughter you are not taking away a persons right to kill or to sell their horse. So how are their rights being infringed? How they take care of their property and how much profit they make when they sell their property is up to them. They can still sell their horse at a sale; is it really affecting their rights to say the horse will go to a new home instead of being slaughtered?

[Monarch]

I am not happy that some horses end up at the slaughter house.
I do have some question as to the degree the banning will help horse welfare in the long run. I have hesitated to post but maybe some of you could answer my questions?
This bill is suppose to end slaughter for human consumpion? but what about slaughter for dog food or glue? Do they not use horses for those things any more?
If this banning does end all horse slaughter in this country couldn’t the horses be shipped to be slaughtered in Mexico? I am told there is a pervision in the bill to make it unlawfull to ship horse out of the country for slaughter for human consumpion but I have no faith in this kind of thing being enforced. Lets face it we have laws against people coming into this country & we all know how well those are inforced. I fear that the treatment of horses who end up in another country will meet a worse fate than what is currently here in this country. Maybe someone out there can put my fears to rest?
M

[Lora]

IN my opinion - when the law passes, people are going to have to become more responsible for their horses.

Hopefully there will be some sort of regulations on breeding???

[county]

IYO if the law passes howe will it make them become responsable? IMO everyone is responsabale for their livestock now slaughter has nothing to do with if they choose to be or not.

I do agree there needs to be regulations on breeding. But for people not livestock.

[jetsmom]

Monarch- Horse meat hasn’t been used in commercially prepared dog/cat food since the 70’s. A VERY SMALL amount is used by zoos to feed the big cats.

HR503 bans the transport and sale of horses for slaughter. That would make shipping them out of the country illegal. Currently the Canadian slaughterhouses are already at capacity and have been shipping horses into the US (Cavel) for slaughter to handle the excess. As county agreed in this thread (or maybe the other one) he wouldn’t ship to Canada illegally, because he wouldn’t do something illegal. Most people will not. There may be a few, but I think when weighing whether it is better that 90,000 horses are guarenteed of being slaughtered (with at least 9000 not being killed on the first hit of a captive bolt, requiring multiple hits), against the possibility that a few may be shipped to Canada, I’d rather not go with the former. But that’s just my opinion.

Plus, a ban on horse slaughter here, should raise the price of horses for slaughter in CA and MX due to supply. The Canadian and Mexican people selling horses to the CA and MX slaughterhouses will not take fondly to Americans illegally trying to dilute their market, by transporting illegally.

[county]

Can. ships horses to the U.S. which is true but very few compared to hom many we ship to Can. most slaughter horses from here in Mn. and states closer to Can. go there instead of U.S. plants.

And I have no doubts people will still haul horses to plants in Can. I won’t but then I don’t sell horses to slaughter plants now so why would I?

I do have a question though. I keep hearing people say if the ban ever becomes law selling horses at auction will not change. Why not? You will take away buyers both meat buyers and people who buy only to keep them away from the meat buyers. How will that not affect the price received for a horse that those two parties would have bid on?

[jetsmom]

Less than 1% of the horses in the uS are slaughtered. Of those, not all come from auctions. So there will not be a huge affect on values.

More people may eventually be comfortable running a horse thru an auction, if they know that the horse isn’t at risk of being slaughtered. More people might attend if they know that killer buyers aren’t there and they don’t have to feel so sad about some of the horse’s fates.

The market will start to reflect a true value of a horse. A big untrained poorly conformed horse should not bring more than an unbroke nice 2 yr old. Yet at meat prices he might. A breeder/owner will have more of an incentive to train his horses, in order to make them more marketable, without the slaughter option. Right now, there is no incentive.

[Graymaresrule]

@county;1874034

IYO if the law passes howe will it make them become responsable? IMO everyone is responsabale for their livestock now slaughter has nothing to do with if they choose to be or not.

I do agree there needs to be regulations on breeding. But for people not livestock.

County and I can agree on that!

Do you REALLY want the government involved in breeding?

[Huntertwo]

@county;1871857

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.

County, I do agree with you regarding this matter. As I stated before, all animals feel pain, thirst, and fright, whether is be a chicken, pig, cow or horse.

[county]

No incentive? Your kidding right, broke horses bring more money at all the sales I go to here, the Dakotas, Ok. , Mo., and Tx.

But tell me then why don’t the rescues buy sound healthy horses, break them to saddle and sell for more money/ Instead many buy crippled, old, sick, etc. Why not save the sound ones and let the cripples go? They would get more money which in turn gives them more funds for feed and to buy more horses there by saving even more from slaughter. Just sound business practice IMO.

[county]

BTW jetsmom I do agree there will not be a huge effect on the over all market. But for those horses that only have the two bidders I mentioned there will be a very huge effect. I can’t get behind destroying that market because someone doesn’t like what others have for dinner.

[MSP]

I don’t care what others have for dinner I care about our horses being transported, handled and slaughtered in inhumane conditions.

Monarch, consider this…. If we view any law as only worthy if no one breaks it we wouldn’t have any laws on the books! Murder is against the laws yet some people continue to murder. If it is illegal to transport horses to Mexico and Canada then those that break the law may be punished, with out a law they go freely (as they do now).

Say the law is ignored and 34000 horses go over both borders, then 50 to 60 thousand horses didn’t. That would still be a win for the horses and the horses that go over the border are going over the border now!

Say they ramp up and Mexico and Canada can process more horses; can 90,000 to 100,000 be snuck over the border with out being noticed? Would that many drivers be willing to break the law? Would all the groups and individuals that are pushing for this law simply turn a blind eye to it? I think not.

The citizens patrolling our borders do a better job than our government and they can do so only because they are enforcing a law! We need a law prohibiting transport to slaughter!

[Lora]

[QUOTE=county;1874034]
IYO if the law passes howe will it make them become responsable? IMO everyone is responsabale for their livestock now slaughter has nothing to do with if they choose to be or not.

I do agree there needs to be regulations on breeding. But for people not livestock.[/QUOTE]

Take for instance the Quarter Horse - they are over-bred - when slaughter is illegal, what is going to happen to all the ruined/wrong color/not fast enough quarter horses? The market may be over-run with horses? What are the owners of these horses and yes other breeds also going to do with their horses they want to get rid of? Put them down? Retire them? Find them new careers? Become responsible - yes!!! Maybe the next year, they will not breed so many - there is an idea!!!

[Monarch]

Jetsmom
Thanks for answering my question regarding dog food, so the only reason horses are slaughtered here in the states is for shipping over seas for human consumption? If this law goes into effect we will not slaughter any horses here in the USA for any reason? I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.
I had a friend who had some horses stollen from her farm in 1989 or 1990 I can’t remember exactly which year. Without going through the whole story one of the horses ended up at the Ft. Worth plant. My friend had notified the slaughter house and posted pictures & offered a reward. Ironically because the horse was marked for human consumption it saved his life - they evidently only slaughter 2 days a week for human consumption and the horse had arrived on a day that was not one of those days. One of the workers spotted the horse and they phoned my friend, who went & picked up her horse - the guy there told her she was lucky because the day he arrived if he hadn’t be maked for human consumption he would have gone through and been slaughtered that day. We assumed those horses were for dog food?
Hum… you say they haven’t used horse meat for dog food since the 70’s? I hope you are right.
Unfortunately I am not as optimistic as yourself regarding horses not crossing the borders if horse meat prices go up as you say it is only more of an incentive for someone to bring them across, at least this is my view. I could be wrong, I hope I am. We will have no control over a horses welfare once it crosses the borders into another country.
M