[QUOTE=Two Simple;1863633]
Yes.
If there were enough good homes for these animals, they wouldn’t BE at slaughter houses. So banning slaughter will do NOTHING except ensure the pain, suffering, neglect, and abuse be drug out for years. Or, as you said, thousands of miles.[/QUOTE]
County- Regarding where pro- slaughter people have stated that the horses will be taken out of the country or starved…see above post as just ONE example. There are many others just like it throughout these threads.
And while we are at it, lets all pay more taxes so goverment can take care of our (all horse owners) problems. The government should stay out of the horse industry. That includes horse slaughter.
LF
I never said pro people didn’t think some horses will be hauled out of country nor have many anti slaughter people. I did ask where someone got the idea 90,000 would though.
[QUOTE=Equibrit;1863598]
Will all the unforetunate unwanted animals get packed in to overloaded trucks and shipped to Canada or Mexico?[/QUOTE]
County- this is the question to which Two Simple responded to, in the post I quoted above.
I take the phrase “all the unforetunate (sic) animals” to mean all that are currently being slaughtered which is about 90,000. Then Two Simples reply of “Yes” to mean that she thinks all 90,000 will be shipped illegally or starve.
I have been told that sick and downed horses have been sent to Mexico for a long time.
[QUOTE=J Swan;1863855]
As I have already said - it ain’t the shot that is expensive, my dear. If my vet cuts me a break on the shot - there are always other costs.
And the goats were rescues. Like many people - we do the best we can with what we have. Yes - next time I’ll just use a firearm - though I did not have a problem with paying the 200$ for euthanasia - Koza’s death was used to illustrate that costs of euthanasia can be expensive in many parts of the country.
At the risk of repeating myself - it ain’t the shot that’s costly.
I for one would like to know the economic model used to predict that costs will come down. Did Brookings perform a study?[/QUOTE]
I read post thoroughly so you are not repeating yourself to me. I know it isn’t the cost of the shot that is so expensive. I adopted 2 goats in May, after much thought, and was fully aware that a regular vet visit to my farm would cost $50. For a goat. Much, much less if I transported to the vet.
My farm costs for an emergency visit regarding horses on a weekend call can go as high as $100 for the visit alone. I am well aware of the costs anytime I bring one home. The overall costs are always a factor whether it’s a horse or a child.
[QUOTE=J Swan;1863855]
As I have already said - it ain’t the shot that is expensive, my dear. If my vet cuts me a break on the shot - there are always other costs.
And the goats were rescues. Like many people - we do the best we can with what we have. Yes - next time I’ll just use a firearm - though I did not have a problem with paying the 200$ for euthanasia - Koza’s death was used to illustrate that costs of euthanasia can be expensive in many parts of the country.
At the risk of repeating myself - it ain’t the shot that’s costly.
I for one would like to know the economic model used to predict that costs will come down. Did Brookings perform a study?[/QUOTE]
I read post thoroughly so you are not repeating yourself to me. I know it isn’t the cost of the shot that is so expensive. I adopted 2 goats in May, after much thought, and was fully aware that a regular vet visit to my farm would cost $50. For a goat. Much, much less if I transported to the vet.
My farm costs for an emergency visit regarding horses on a weekend call can go as high as $100 for the visit alone. I am well aware of the costs anytime I bring one home. The overall costs are always a factor whether it’s a horse or a child.
No need for an economic model as the past clearly shows the balance of supply & demand.
[QUOTE=LostFarmer;1863876]
And while we are at it, lets all pay more taxes so goverment can take care of our (all horse owners) problems. The government should stay out of the horse industry. That includes horse slaughter.
LF[/QUOTE]
Does it not bother you that your tax money has NOT been used for what it was intended for? I’m sure that had some merit for those that cast votes today.
But I though we weren’t supposed to look at things as two wrongs don’t make a right?
Good heavens…I hear people say it all the time on these boards…typically they will say “well if 90,000 horses are slaughtered now and that ends than we will have 90,000 excess unwanted horses that will be neglected, turned loose to fend for themselves and otherwise mistreated.” I usuallly suggest that they study history a bit and see that much larger decreases in slaughter in the past did not result in hundreds of thousands of loose, starving horses wandering the countryside but for some reason they don’t hear that as they are so fixated on the propaganda they have been fed for years that somehow the slaughterhouses are doing America’s horses a huge favor and saving them from their neglectful cruel owners…preventive neglect if you will…it’s a common argument.
“Winding up in a kill pen is like getting divorced. It means only that one person doesn’t want you. It doesn’t mean you have no value whatsoever.”
Yeah, What she said:cool:
Also, someone else already asked this but I didn’t see an answer. Why don’t the other countries just kill their own horses?? Wouldn’t it be more cost effective? 
Banning slaughter is going to have a serious blow to those who steal or take free/lease horses under false pretenses to quickly dump for profit 
Do you have any idea how much the government spends our tax dollars toying with farm businesses? Imagine if crops sold for actual prices and not the subsidized prices (eg. cash row crops) or actual prices to produce (eg. milk). Your government spends tax $ to promote certian farm industries while ignoring others. They back crop insurance. They dictate how much in property tax farmers pay, but then they play favorites if you sign away some of your rights (PA’s “Clean and Green”, selling development rights, etc). They spend tax dollars on studying wetlands, and then they declare some of your fields “wetlands” effectively taking use away from the farmer. Government plays all sorts of games with crop prices by doing import embargos or conversely allowing dumping of some farm products on our market. Dont tell me this doesn’t affect you; every thing from your own horse farm’s value to horse grain prices to availability of hay can all be linked to government’s meddling. If you object to the government meddling, banning inhumane horse treatment is the least of your worries.
Because they are oblivious to the crap that may be in the meat. Just as americans are oblivious to the BGH, antibiotic residue, infectious agents, and other contaminants in their beef or chickens (especially those factory farmed). We just want the Big Mac… we don’t care what’s in it. We don’t think about the real cost to the environement/animal/ourselves to enjoy the Big Mac. If we don’t reflect on our burgers, why should French ponder what’s in their “delicacy”?
The reason other countries don’t slaughter their own horses is mostly because of room for them and feed stuffs. Those countries don’t have the avaliable land we do for large numbers of horses and the many acres it takes to raise the food for them to eat. Its the same thing basically for why we import products.
can we get government to help fund euthanasia/cremation/disposal?
Why would we? And who, exactly, would pay for this? Should taxpayers who don’t own horses now foot the bill for those who do? And how is this a good idea?
Well, why don’t we get the Cattlemen’s Association to pay for it if slaughter is banned through the Senate. They already pay the house $3/horse to have the horse slaughtered and inspected so they are used to paying for partial disposal of the “unused” parts of the horse.
FWIW, my taxpayer money seems to be footing the bill for a lot of crap that I don’t own/support.
So if thats a bad thing why add to it? 2% of the people in the U.S. own a horse why make the other 98% pay to fix a problem we refuse to work together to solve?
I think you folks are counting your chickens before they are hatched. This has to go through the Senate, also, where it may be changed; and there is always the possibility of a presidential veto. Then enabling legislation.
I think you folks are counting your chickens before they are hatched. This has to go through the Senate, also, where it may be changed; and there is always the possibility of a presidential veto. Then enabling legislation. THEN putting it into practice. Lots of things can happen from here…
And no doubt will hopefully if a law is passed someone actually puts some though into it instead of the useless thing passed today.
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
