HR503 passed

[proudtobespotted]

HR503 to prevent horse slaughter in the US passed in congress. It still has to go through the senate and then the president.

The Jacksons, who own Barbaro, sent a picture of him to every member of congress signed with "would you eat this"

I know this is a hot topic, but I think its great.

Susan

[PaCe2WN]

This is very promising news...I'm hoping and praying that it goes all the way through. Thanks for posting!!! :)

[zar]

That's good news! I hope it passes all the way!

Liz

[Tripledeuce]

I am definatly not advocating slaughter,,,,,but has anyont thought of what people are going to do with all the "un-wanted" horses that,,up untill now have gon to slaughter?????????????????

Terry

[justbcos]

I'm with you Terry - when I first read about the bill, I was all for it. But when reading input from both sides, I certainly developed a very real concern for what will happen to all the unwanteds. Likely that the rescue groups will have more than they can handle.

I doubt that we'll see any real decrease in the number of births, because too many people think "my mare is just so sweet, I'd really like to have one (or more) of her babies"... or people who think they can make big money in the horse business so start a breeding operation before they realize the true statistics of profit in horses...

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[LarknMe]

Someone should start a huge "unwanted horse ranch" where all unwanted horses could just run in pasture like mustangs if they weren't going to be used. :D

I know that sounds way out there but what else can we do with all of them? :confused: We only have 1 (my Lark) and that's all we can keep up with an afford. Alot of people only have a couple and can't take on more due to time, space, or finances. :(

[Cassie1]

I for one, hope it passes...if folks were more responsible then we wouldn't have to have so many rescues and shelters for all the "unwanteds"...not a perfect world, but I believe that it's not all about "I don't know what to do with this horse" but also about "it's some fast cash i.e., greed....

Ginger

[Haunani]

if folks were more responsible then we wouldn't have to have so many rescues and shelters for all the "unwanteds"Unfortunately, this is America, where everyone is out to make a buck, but doesn't want to spend it.

Horse rescues are struggling NOW. How are they going to handle the 90,000+ horses PER YEAR that will now have no place to go? Who's going to pay for it? WHERE will they go? 90,000 horses take up A LOT of land. You're talking 200,000 acres PER YEAR to put the horses on... at a bare minimum.

Some think an "affordable" euthanization/rendering/cremating solution may work. I, for one, don't. I'd venture to guess that at least 90% of the horses that go to slaughter are from owners that don't want to spend a penny on them (and the other 10% for owners that can't). ANYTHING that causes them to spend more money is not going to be an option. They'd rather try and shoot the horse themselves or just let it starve.

My position is this (some from other boards may recognize this)... until we figure out what to do for the 90,000+ horses, slaughter is a necessary evil. (or at least allow them to be transported into Canada or Mexico for slaughter)

[Missouri Girl]

Well this topic is sizzlin. How do you respond when you can relate to both sides? We live in a world where humans use animals as they see fit to serve whatever purpose they deem more important. Look at the Premarin farms. The need for birth control becomes more important than the animals.
But if slaughter is not an option, what other solutions are there? Slaughter is horrible, but consider what people might do if it is no longer an option? Some of those things might be just as bad. I dont know, I certianly dont have an answer. Sorry.

[Tripledeuce]

I,also,,,have no answer....

But,,I think the question needs to be addressed,befor a law is pased........

Terry

[PonyDriver]

My guess is that without slaughter, surplus/injured/sick horses will be abandoned, neglected or shot.

As an alternative, local, state or federal agencies will need to allocate money to have the animals humanely euthanized, because most of them are not going to land in Happy Pastures Equine Retirement Home.

If the animals are transported to other countries, then they will have the additional stress of transportation and we have lost control over any standards of treatment. Slaughter really really sucks, but will the horses fare better being hauled to Mexican slaughter houses?

I think providing low cost/free euthanization services is the best answer, but I don't think that's going to happen.

I don't have the answer either. It's a sad, complex issue.

(In the same vein, I am not a huge advocate of no-kill shelters because when they fill up, the animals end up in kill shelters where somebody else does the deed. I feel when there is an overpopulation problem, letting somebody else -- or some other country -- do the dirty work isn't the right answer.)

JMHO.

-PD

[Sugarmom]

What will happen is that they will now be trucked to facilities in Mexico and Canada that have little government oversight. And they'll be slaughtered in conditions that are far more horrific than what's found in the U.S., particularly in Mexico. I'm sorry this bill passed, because ultimately there will be more abuse toward horses, not less. This is a perfect example of the government becoming the nanny state and stepping in without the ramifications being addressed.

[Haunani]

Sugarmom- Actually, it won't. If I remember correctly, a part of the bill includes not allowing them to be transported across borders for slaughter, so that's not an option either.

[April]

I am interested in seeing how this will work out if it passes. I have decided that if something happens to my horses, I will adopt a OTTB. I have a mare but she is older and as much as I think she would make a good momma, it makes more sense to me to adopt.
I had a show dog that I had neutered when he was done showing because of his health problems. He was a champion dog but he has a list of genetic problems I don't want passed on.
I know that not everyone is that responsible but the best choice I made was to adopt a puppy. I hope that this bill forces people to think about the future of the foals being born, but that is just a hope.

[justbcos]

. Look at the Premarin farms. The need for birth control becomes more important than the animals.

Not to take this thread off-topic, but Premarin is not used for birth control - it is used to help women who are having hard menopauses (helps with hot flashes, etc.) There are other herbal treatments and such that can be used. Not being to that stage in my life, I haven't tried any of the treatments and can't speak to the efficacy of any of them, but still I wonder how necessary Premarin is...

Bottom line on the "getting rid of horses" issue - there are going to be people who no longer want their horses, and aren't going to take the time and effort to find them a good home. Maybe the horse is sick/injured, or just too expensive, or whatever... but they will dump these horses somewhere. Maybe they'll do like people used to do to dogs - take them out to the country and dump them in the wild. Or maybe they'll shoot them and leave the bodies lie in the field. Or maybe they'll just quit feeding them and let them starve to death. Until we figure out a way to either 1) make sure people are committed to the life-term care of an animal before they breed or buy one or 2) provide a low-cost method for discarding the "unwanteds", we are going to have a big problem. i don't like #1, because that means just more government involvement and control. But I don't know what to do with #2.

I've never liked the idea of the horse slaughterhouses, but I agree, I think the US (and probably Canada) slaughterhouses are much better than some of the alternatives.

What a terrible issue - and I agree with Terry, the root question needs to be resolved before semi-informed laws are made by people who aren't close to the real problem.

[Missouri Girl]

Sorry for the mistake Justbcos. Thanks for the clarification.But whether its for birth control or menopause, the Premarin farms still exist. And I think often another solution is available, but unfortunately the demand is still out there. If the demand went away, the farms wouldn't be in business. Although I did it incorrectly, I was only trying to make the point that many humans use animals (not just horses) to serve their own agenda, and then discard them with no caring involved. Of course we know that none of us would be on this forum if we didn't just love our horses to death. That is why this topic is so heated, and why when we see a photo of a rescue horse our hearts ache and we just dint understand how it happens.
I also agree with Terry. A solution needs to be determined before a law is passed. But I'm afraid thats not always how our government works. Its up to those with the agenda.

[MeasureMe]

I better put on my flame proof suit, because I am against this bill.

I see nothing wrong with slaughtering horses, cows, chickens, etc. I would like to see it more humanely done, though.

We have limited resources and have to make choices as to how those resources are used/distributed.

I would much rather see our Congress pass bills to allocate funds for health insurance for the uninsured in this country; to provide proper day care & after school programs; to fix levees and old dams; and many more important programs that affect HUMAN lives.

It seems to me that we in this country have put horses on some sort of pedestal and anthropomorphized them.

I'm sorry, but I am very pragmatic about this kind of thing. If this bill passes the Senate and is signed into law, I can just see thousands more neglected, abused horses languishing in someone's "rescue" place.

What are we going to do with the horses when slaughter is outlawed? I sure don't have the resources to "rescue" a horse, nor do I have the inclination.

Unless everyone who supports this bill is willing to take on the burden/expense of taking care of these horses, IMO, they should concentrate on making slaughter more humane, as Temple Grandin is doing.

Ok, stepping off my soap box.

[PonyDriver]

MG, taking away slaughter houses does not take away demand for horses. Horses aren't raised for slaughter the way they were/are raised for Premarin.

Slaughter is a sad by-product of the horse industry -- which, like it or not -- is us.

But ending slaughter doesn't mean that people will be raising fewer horses or that the demand will be reduced. Unfortunately.

MM, I agree with you about needing to make the process more humane. There is a huge need for that.

-PD

[Appy Trails]

As much as the thought of eating a horse goes against my feelings for them,
I'm with MM on this one.

If this bill passes, we going to hear more and more of the ASPCA or their equivalant going out and taking numerous horses off people's property because they've been left to starve etc. This is going to happen because we're taking away probably the only option that some people may have.

I agree the indiscriminate breeder needs to be stopped and a more humane way of slaughter found but shutting down the slaughter houses isn't going to do either of these things.

[Tuff e Nuff]

MM - for once I agree with you.

I don't think twice when I pull into McDonald's and order a chicken sandwich or a hamburger. Cattle are sacred animals in other countries yet most of us don't think twice before plopping a nice juicy steak on the grill. I’ll bet there is a large percentage of people how eat products that horses are used to make and don’t even know it.

"We" view horses differently so it isn't ok for people to eat them. I agree that I would like to find a way to make the process more humane but I don't think it should banned.

On a side note - If any one has seen horses that have been purchased for slaughter they are fat and healthy – not sick and “rescue-like” for the most part. Who wants to eat a sick or diseased animal? The slaughter houses don’t profit off of a small horse. That’s why the fat healthy ones go for more. The last sale I went to a breeder had a dispersal sale. Two gentleman that I’d never seen before bought 90% of the horses and paid a good penny for them. When I asked the sale barn owner who they were he said they were killer buyers. These were all papered, healthy paints. They wouldn’t waste their money to load a scrawny horse on the semi to possibly loose it before they got to the yard.

I’m not sure but maybe it would make some people feel better if “slaughter” horses were raise with the sole purpose of being slaughtered like cows in feedlots.

Horses fall into two different groups depending on who you are talking to – livestock or pets.

I think instead of trying to stop it we need to find the most humane way possible to do it.

[Randi]

Most individuals don't take their horses to the slaughter house, they take them to auction (if that is their inclination, and have no other buyers), where they THEN are bought by killer buyers and as pointed out yesterday, they are bought in a deceptive way, often not disclosing what is going to happen to the horse, to the unsuspecting owners. Or, horses are stolen to take to the slaughter house. Or, killer buyers answer ads out of the paper and lie to owners/sellers of the horse, about it's destination.

When horses are at an auction, many times the killer buyers are bidding against a non-killer buyer. Take the killer buyer out of that equation and the horse goes to the non-killer buyer. Point being, there are people that will take many of them already, if the killer buyers weren't there to bid against them.

Folks that are going to starve and neglect their horses, are going to do it anyway. They are doing it now, and DO have the option of taking them to slaughter, but they opt not to.

Here are some solutions:

As also pointed out yesteday, the AQHA, who are opposed to HB 503, are the largest horse registry in the country at well over 100,000 foals per year. When registering a horse of any breed, would you be willing to pay an additional $1.00? That $1.00, multiplied by the horses in annual horse registrations of AQHA horses alone, would generate plenty of money for reputable rescues to take in these horses and help care for them.

How about $1.00 added on to each required Coggins test? If there are 9,000,000 horses in this country and only half of them have their coggins tests each year - that would be 4.5 million to go to the care of the horses needing homes, (90,000 x $2,000.00 per year care of each horse= $180,000.00, for all otherwise slaughtered horses each year) With 4.5 million, there is a lot left over to fund the oversight of instituting a program like this.

That is only two examples of what we can do. The answers are there and even if they weren't, it doesn't mean that we should continue this brutal practice because it might cause an inconvenience. And it is a brutal practice. There are laws that govern transport, that it be humane, etc., etc. that are not adhered to now. So to simply say let's just make it more humane isn't going to work. It is already suppose to be humane and the laws simply are not enforced. Once at the slaughter house, things only get worse - it is not humane in the least.

I have to disagree about differences in animals, in that horses ARE different than other livestock that are bred for human consumption. Horses are NOT bred for that, and never have been, in this country. If other countries want to eat horsemeat, then they should grow their own.

It's shameful that an owner of a working horse, when that horse is ready to retire, that he or she is not even willing to spend the money to have it humanely euthanized. You can't tell me that they can't afford to do that, in most cases. If they afforded to keep the horse during the time that they did at approx. $2,000.00 per year, and keep it healthy enough to perform tasks and work asked of it, they should be able to afford to see it to a dignified end to it's life - on the high end, at about $500.00. As with any pet, that should fall under responsible pet ownership.

[vsolubo]

Here are some solutions:

As also pointed out yesteday, the AQHA, who are opposed to HB 503, are the largest horse registry in the country at well over 100,000 foals per year. When registering a horse of any breed, would you be willing to pay an additional $1.00? That $1.00, multiplied by the horses in annual horse registrations of AQHA horses alone, would generate plenty of money for reputable rescues to take in these horses and help care for them.


This is a good idea, let every breeder pay just $1 extra per registration & put it into a fund for equine rescues. But who would be in charge of distribution of the funds? There are hundreds of rescues nationwide, who would say which ones get how much? Will part of those funds go to pay for administrative costs?

[Missouri Girl]

Well, aren't I good at giving a wrong impression. Guess I type before I think how it might be taken.
Ok here I go, let me clear some things up.
I am not against the slaughter, I understand the necessity, but I believe that it needs to be done in a humane manner.
I believe that some humans exploit animals for their benefit and the end result is an animal living in undesirable conditions. Now, I eat beef chicken yada yada (if you could see me, you would know this is true). My husband hunts, I eat venison. I live on a farm, and have even considered raising boar goats for meat.
However, I believe a person should only take on what they can handle. Financially and emotionally. I hate to see someone have too many animals and then neglect them. And how in the heck did I get here from slaughter animals, I dunno.
I don't like the idea of slaughter houses, but I eat beef and chicken from them. Hipacryte? Guess so. More than that, I don't like the idea of what would happen to the horses if a slaughter house was no longer an option.
So, if I mislead you with my previous posts, sorry. If I aggravated you or even got the fire going hotter, so be it, I have that tendency.
I am one of those people that believes in LESS government involvement. I have several rights that I am not willing to give up.
OK, I have to get to work, I have long figured out my house does not clean itself.

[Randi]

The Thoroughbred industry already offers jockeys the capability of contributing to retired/retiring race horses, through their registration. I am unaware of how the monies are distributed and under what criteria, but that is a detail that should/could be ironed out fairly easily. I would rather see it done without government oversight. I agree, we have enough of that.

(What we all should be more concerned about, and something that -is- going to have an effect on each and every horse owner is the National Animal Identification System. That is going to be a real problem, compared to a solution for homeless horses. Lots of government oversight and involvemnet with that program. If you want to discuss NAIS, that's another thread entirely.)

BTW- In 2005, there were only just over 125 registered non-profit organizations operating as horse rescues. There are many folks that do it, as Renee and others do, privately, or "personal" rescues. However if there was enough income to registered rescue programs that they could take in all homeless horses, it would take much of the burden off of private citizens to do personal rescues.

[Missouri Girl]

I just joined the AQHA, and sent in my fillys registration. Yes, I would have sent additional money towards a rescue organization.
You are right about the NAIS, you are right about that being a whole other thread. Im very against that, again the whole less goverment involved thing.
Well, I think Ill stay off of this thread from here on out.
I do enjoy everyone on here talking though, differing opinions and all.

[PaCe2WN]

I’m not sure but maybe it would make some people feel better if “slaughter” horses were raise with the sole purpose of being slaughtered like cows in feedlots.

Many of the animals that are raised simply for slaughter are raised in factory farms...these animals literally never see the light of day. This goes for cows, chickens, you name it. I don't care if you're a diseased earthworm, nothing deserves that kind of a life. The animals are kept in cramped, unsanitary conditions, and a three year old could look at them and tell that they weren't healthy. And if you could care less about the animals, then think about what you're eating...you have to know that can't be very healthy. Do we really want to put horses in that sort of a situation??? Is it not better for a horse to live a pampered life that was cut short, rather than give one a life that is both horrible AND cut short??? This is why I'm a vegetarian...I don't want to support the industries where animals are created simply to be destroyed, all just so that I can eat whatever I want. I don't care if you all don't become vegetarians, nor do I expect you to. That's just my reason.

Alright, I'm getting off my soap box ;) Now that the rose-colored glasses have been removed from my eyes, I do agree, as sad as it is, that slaughter for horses is neccessary. I think this is just one of those issues where you can't be truly happy with either outcome. I do agree that it needs to be done more humanely...THAT is a good bill to pass.

[Tuff e Nuff]

Pace - I threw that in because it has been brought up in other threads. The majority of what I eat is farm raised and not store bought - that's just personal preference.

I think Randi had some good ideas about the extra money but I don't think it's going to solve the over population problem in the end. I read an article that is long but I do think it's good food for thought even if you don't agree with it 100% I'll post it to a new thread so I don't take up too much room on this one.

[PaCe2WN]

I gotcha, Tuff. ;) I was just giving my point of view and opinion...it was just SO tempting ;) It was more of a vent about treatment of animals in factory farms.

Randi, this does sound like a very good solution that could drastically decrease the numbers of horses that are slaughtered...but I, too, can't see it working in full. Eventually, the rescue opperations will overflow with unwanted horses. Many of which can't be ridden...as much as we'd like to believe it, not all horse people will want to take in a horse that you can't ride. Eventually, the numbers of unrideable horses will increase, and when the rescues are overwhelmed with horses that nobody wants....then what???
And we really need to think of the positive side: At least the horses, when they die, are being put to a use. The dead body isn't just rotting in a field...it's being put to use. It's not going to waste.
Just my 2...4...6 cents ;)

[Southerngurl]

When horses are at an auction, many times the killer buyers are bidding against a non-killer buyer. Take the killer buyer out of that equation and the horse goes to the non-killer buyer. Point being, there are people that will take many of them already, if the killer buyers weren't there to bid against them.



Supply and demand still applies. It's not always like that. Sometimes the killers are the only one bidding on a horse. If there were not too big a supply and too little demand for horses, then the killers could not be in business. The only solution in such a situation is is make less supply or more demand. The problem is that horses are expensive to keep, they are hard on their environment, they eat alot, they are big and heavy. It comes with the territory. Reducing supply would be either breeding less horses (we have a winner!) or destroying excess horses that no one is willing to care for. I love horses very much, and hate the thought of them dying, even of old age, but unfortunately it's reality. Look around you, look at nature. It's probably a lot better than them getting killed by a lion.

Folks that are going to starve and neglect their horses, are going to do it anyway. They are doing it now, and DO have the option of taking them to slaughter, but they opt not to.

This type of legislation will make it more common however. People who wouldn't lower themselves to neglecting an animals typically will be more likely to do this when put in a situation where not neglecting an animals is even harder. With a market overfilled, they can't get rid of the horse. What happens when winter comes after a drought and hay is 6 dollars a bale, or unable to be found, and said person has to pay their electric bill or what have you? It's just creating more bad situations where horses are likely to be starved or neglected.

As also pointed out yesteday, the AQHA, who are opposed to HB 503, are the largest horse registry in the country at well over 100,000 foals per year. When registering a horse of any breed, would you be willing to pay an additional $1.00? That $1.00, multiplied by the horses in annual horse registrations of AQHA horses alone, would generate plenty of money for reputable rescues to take in these horses and help care for them.

How about $1.00 added on to each required Coggins test? If there are 9,000,000 horses in this country and only half of them have their coggins tests each year - that would be 4.5 million to go to the care of the horses needing homes, (90,000 x $2,000.00 per year care of each horse= $180,000.00, for all otherwise slaughtered horses each year) With 4.5 million, there is a lot left over to fund the oversight of instituting a program like this.

Actualy that would be 180 million a year, not 180 thousand, right?

Even if it were that, it sounds nice, but is not sustainable. Each year horses will be added to the program. Sure, eventually horses will die off of natural causes, but let's say each horse in this program lives 20 years. That's 90,000 x 20 yrs x $2000 per year = $3,600,000,000 per year. Over 3 trillion dollars a year. Or even if the horses just live ten years on average (factoring in old horses etc) that's still 1,800,000,000 . It's a huge excess.

On the other hand these animals can feed people and be of value, rather than a huge financial burden to our country (as much as eating a horse disturbs me).

Even if such money was raised, there are people starving out there, seems shamefull to spend so much on horses.

I have to disagree about differences in animals, in that horses ARE different than other livestock that are bred for human consumption. Horses are NOT bred for that, and never have been, in this country. If other countries want to eat horsemeat, then they should grow their own.

Horses don't know what they're bred for, if it even made a difference that they did.

It's shameful that an owner of a working horse, when that horse is ready to retire, that he or she is not even willing to spend the money to have it humanely euthanized.
Yes it is.

You can't tell me that they can't afford to do that, in most cases. If they afforded to keep the horse during the time that they did at approx. $2,000.00 per year, and keep it healthy enough to perform tasks and work asked of it, they should be able to afford to see it to a dignified end to it's life - on the high end, at about $500.00.

Yes they should, or simply go ahead and care for it through it's golden years in appreciation of a life spent on you. Although I don't think a shot to the head (done correctly) is any worse than chemical euthanasia to the horse, just worse to those around at the time. :(

[Missouri Girl]

Tuff e Nuff posted a very related article thats a good read. "Survival Tips for the New horse market."You know, we bought our gelding George. We got him for a very good price. Once we got him, we noticed the seller is selling out of all of his color and switching to Quarter horse stock. He was talking about how bad the market has been. He said if we hadn't gotten George, that he was going to have to take him to the auction where "the killers" would probably get him. Now he has Georges daddy up for sale for a steal, a very beautiful large stud that throws color every time. And he said if his horses didn't sell, they would have to go to the auction. This breaks my heart. George is absolutely everything Brian was looking for in a horse. The idea that he could have been lost at an auction floors me.

[annie92499]

I agree with Randi. I am not for the bill, cause it seems to have some odd stuff in it, but I see more good then bad coming out of the "no slaughtering" part. Kill buyers don't want the old, skinny, tough horses. They want drafts, Qh's, and big heavy built horses. They also like foals. Those are a big seller because it is a higher quality meat. A foal/yearling will sell at Ship for as much as a full grown, trained horse because the kill buyers want them.

The rescue I work at takes in lots of skinny, abused Arabs, with some mustangs, and some QH mixed. But it breaks my heart that it's because those are the cheap guys. The ones the killers will buy to fill the truck. She can't afford the healthy guys, the foals, or the full QH or drafty breeds. I know this will drive down the price, and yes, there will be some old horses left to die in the pasture. But there will be a lot of good horses going to good homes simply because the kill buyers aren't there to drive up the price.

So I can see both sides, but I do think, maybe we should think about the horses this will save. Good, healthy horses that just had the unfortune of being heavy built. And it will give rescues a better chance to focus on RESCUE instead of trying to save some of the good guys out of kill. I know lots of people who buy out of kill and resell trying to help some of the wonderful horses that get run through there. Now I think they will be there to absorb the neglected and abused more. I know instead of filling her trailer at kill every couple monthes, I think the gal I work with will be able to join the state rescue and take in the exact horses that would be the sad ones going to kill. I wonder if anyone did a study to see what precentage of horses in kill are good, healthy horses, vs. old, crippled etc. According to the people I know have been to Ship and buy kill, the old crippled etc. get bought by them, and the good healthy go to kill. Who wants to eat a scrawny, tough horse, that cost you to haul and dispose of?

"Horses don't know what they're bred for, if it even made a difference that they did. "

That they don't know isn't the point. Cows, pigs, etc. are bred to be calm, brainless, and not as bothered by the whole ordeal. Horses aren't. Slaughter is much more terrifing to horses. That they break legs, flip over, and tear themselves all up because they know what's going on and are terrified is part of it. If they were bred to be eaten, they'd breed them for extreme weight and dullness. They wouldn't get so freaked out, and even if they did they'd be morbidly obese and not really able to do much about it.

[justbcos]

Kill buyers don't want the old, skinny, tough horses.

...


Cows, pigs, etc. are bred to be calm, brainless, and not as bothered by the whole ordeal.


Actually, kill buyers do buy old, skinny, tough horses - not for human consumption, but for pet food (at least they used to, that might have changed), and glue.

As for your comments about "cows, pigs, etc." - I take it that you have not raised cows, pigs, sheep, or goats - they are not always calm, they are certainly not brainless, and they can also sense when something like this is taking place. They can smell blood, and death, and they know what it means.

While I don't love the idea of horses being slaughtered, and quite honestly would not be comfortable in a slaughterhouse of any kind, I don't think you can use the superiority of the horse's brain, or the extent of the horse's flightiness, as good arguments against slaughter.

[annie92499]

Actually, kill buyers do buy old, skinny, tough horses - not for human consumption, but for pet food (at least they used to, that might have changed), and glue.

I take it that you have not raised cows, pigs, sheep, or goats

I don't think you can use the superiority of the horse's brain, or the extent of the horse's flightiness, as good arguments against slaughter.

Yes, they do buy old, skinny, tough guys. I'm not argueing that. I'm saying what they buy MORE of is the healthy, chunky, meaty horses. The old guys are for filling the truck, making the trip as profitable as possible. If the healthy horses aren't being bought by rescues to save them from kill, then the rescues can then afford to take in the old, sick, etc.

Pigs no, but I've raised everything else. I'm also not saying that they take it laying down. My point is they are calmer about it. They are usually so overweight that they will die anyways. I've seen lots of pigs that can barely walk, let alone jump a fence and break there leg. I had a meat duck that simply grew so overweight her legs twisted and her heart gave out. Meat breed animals break my heart, because lots of times they do just lay down and die. Slaughter is almost humane for many of them. (And I can rant about this, but it's not the topic).

Horse's superior brain? LOL, I've never met a horse that could hold a candle to my goat. But I do think that they're extreme flightyness is a reason slaughter is a bad thing. BIG changes need made to the way they do it, to accomidate the horses nature, if they did it right. A horse is not a cow, doesn't behave like a cow, and so shouldn't be slaughtered like a cow.

And the whole thing about wasting meat and starving kids in Africa is a bit silly. If I'm not mistaken horse meat is a delacasy in Europe, ie. the rich eat it. It's not being bought for a couple dollars a pound live weight, slaughtered, and being flown to Europe so poor people can eat it. And for what I hear some foals go for, it's gotta cost a pretty penny over there.

[TwoMedicineKody]

I,also,,,have no answer....

But,,I think the question needs to be addressed,befor a law is pased........

Terry
Im with you Terry on that, I am not advocating horse slaughter by no means. But at the same time, im really wondering what is going to happen to all the unwanted horses in our country today.I advocate responsible horse ownership realize the amount of feed you are going to have to buy and the care it takes to own a horse before you go buy one. And also for people to stop this irresponsible breeding. Sure babies are cute but they do grow up. I think what is really going to happen to all these unwanted horses when their is no slaughter yards left to go to. Sure an unwanted horse ranch sounds like a great idea. But is there going to be enough funding to go around to support that. Rescue's are burdened enough, they struggle to make ends meet. I live in a area of the country where believe me their is tons of unwanted horses. They are peoples pasture pets gone bad that run around and graze on everyone elses land. Most run unbranded so the low lifes around here make a easy buck by hauling them off to a auction. And you know where they go from there. It saddens me a great deal for a horse to go to slaughter but it also saddens me a great deal when I see a horse starving to death because the owners keep it locked in a corral with no access to food and water. Which is the fate many unwanted horses will face if horse slaughter is banned. Or to take it another twist picture an elderly horse that no one rides anymore, the owners do not see a use for it anymore. So they turn it loose in pasture to be, the horse no longer has teeth to chew its food and the owners do not want to bare the cost of euthaniza. The horse is out in the field with a ton of feed but cant eat well. And eventually after some weeks of starving the horse dies. That is another fate unwanted horses will face. To me starvation is the cruelest upon cruel form of death. In some areas of the country be it right or wrong horses are still considered livestock, and after their days of work are through many a owner will not bat a eye to send his or her horse to slaughter. I for one do not view a horse as livestock I view mine as members of my family. But I understand the points of views that others who do.I had to make a painful choice this summer to sell two of my mares. I could not afford to be raising colts anymore and there is really no way to prevent it due to all the strays around here. Mine were lucky they found good homes. All in all some 88,000 horses were sent to slaughter last year in this country.

[Randi]

Supply and demand still applies. It's not always like that. Sometimes the killers are the only one bidding on a horse. If there were not too big a supply and too little demand for horses, then the killers could not be in business.

Not with every single horse, but very often the killer buyers are bidding against non-killer buyers. And, they could not be in business if there were no demand for -them- at all = no slaughter houses.

The only solution in such a situation is is make less supply or more demand.

Not the only solution, but I agree that there should be less supply. Over and irresponsible breeding are huge problems.

The problem is that horses are expensive to keep, they are hard on their environment, they eat alot, they are big and heavy. It comes with the territory.

True, horses are not cheap to keep. If one can't afford to have them, then they shouldn't. Another problem - people not educating themselves well enough before getting horses.

Reducing supply would be either breeding less horses (we have a winner!)

Yes!!! Agreed!

Look around you, look at nature. It's probably a lot better than them getting killed by a lion.

Being killed by a lion is not something that most of our horses have to face. This is not about nature taking the lives of horses.

As one Texas Congressman said yesterday, it is already illegal in this country to sell horsemeat for human consumption - our laws already mandate it. Putting the emotional aspect aside, how does it make sense for us to be the supplier, and also manufacture a product that is illegal to sell in our own country?

This type of legislation will make it more common however.

This type of legislation has been in effect in other states and has had little to no effect at all, is spite of the fact that there once was well over three times the current number of horses slaughtered annually.

People who wouldn't lower themselves to neglecting an animals typically will be more likely to do this when put in a situation where not neglecting an animals is even harder.

I am not in denial that this may happen to a small degree. I don't however envision horses galloping up and down the highways, as opponents of HB 503 would have you think.

Actually that would be 180 million a year, not 180 thousand, right?

Oops! Yes, that is right.

Even if it were that, it sounds nice, but is not sustainable. Each year horses will be added to the program. Sure, eventually horses will die off of natural causes, but let's say each horse in this program lives 20 years. That's 90,000 x 20 yrs x $2000 per year = $3,600,000,000 per year. Over 3 trillion dollars a year. Or even if the horses just live ten years on average (factoring in old horses etc) that's still 1,800,000,000 . It's a huge excess.

That is assuming that all 90,000 would end up in rescues and live out there lives there. Rescues adopt horses out to people. Most would be absorbed. 90,000 is only 1% or the horse population in the country. It's also assuming that the owners of these 90,000 horses actually wanted them to end up at the slaughter house. Killer buyers don't only get their horses from auctions. I don't think that all 90,000 are deemed unwanted - by someone.

Rescue facilities have to euthanize horses all of the time. They don't all die of natural causes, after having spent 20 years in the rescue facility. In fact most of them don't.

The over population of horses has little to do with whether slaughter exists or if it doesn't. As mentioned, 90,000 is only 1% of the entire horse population in the country. People should look much harder as to why the problem exists now and stop using the end of horse slaughter as a reason that there could be an over population of horses. There already is an over population of horses, created by people, not horses. Those same people should try to fix the problems that they have created instead of wanting to continue to slaughter horses and act as if it's the condemed horse's fault that there is a flooded market. With slaughter in place, there is still a flooded market, by much more than that 1% that go to slaughter.

Horses don't know what they're bred for, if it even made a difference that they did.

No, but we do. WE don't breed them for consumption. We shouldn't be shipping slaughtered horses to Europe and Asia, any more than Americans should expect India to slaughter and ship cattle to us.

Although I don't think a shot to the head (done correctly) is any worse than chemical euthanasia to the horse, just worse to those around at the time.

Actually a shot to the head (done correctly) would be better that the entire process of slaughter. Not a preference for my own horses, but if it were an emergency and to relieve the horse from suffering... I agree.

I don't want to debate the slaughter issue. I am probably not going to sway anyone and no one is going to sway me. There are issues that may arise from the end of slaughter. They should be addressed. It will probably end at some point. Maybe not this time, but it will eventually end. No matter who proves to be right or wrong, if there are problems that exist because of it, I hope to be part of a solution and will try to focus my energies in that area, rather than the debate. Once it ends (whenever that may be), the debate will be mute.

I am not an "activist" by any means, but I would be happy to see this practice end, no matter the inconvenience. It's time that those responsible for creating the problem of too many horses stand up and take responsibility for it, and take action to make some changes.

[justbcos]

If I'm not mistaken horse meat is a delacasy in Europe, ie. the rich eat it. It's not being bought for a couple dollars a pound live weight, slaughtered, and being flown to Europe so poor people can eat it. And for what I hear some foals go for, it's gotta cost a pretty penny over there.

Haven't checked it out lately, but when I was studying in the Netherlands about 18 years ago, there was horsemeat in the local grocery store, and it was no more expensive than the beef or pork.

[Randi]

Annie,

To address a couple of things you asked about:

According to the USDA, 90% (or a little more) of horses killed at slaughter are younger, healthy and fit horses. I can attest to that -I am 20 minutes away from one of the slaughter houses and about an hour away from another. These horses, in spite of the laws are brought in on double decker cattle trailers - with USDA folks right there watching.

At many auctions, if a horse (no matter the age/condition) is brought in with no coggins test, it goes straight to the kill pen for the killer buyers. Some auctions offer the coggins test there, but many don't.

You're right about the horse meat too. It sells at approx. $15 - $20 per pound in fine restaurants. It is not going to feed the poor, or starving people in other countries.

[MeasureMe]

I really don't understand the opponents of horse slaughter. I wish some of them would put their energies into changing the agri-business community. They could start with reforming dairy farming, for one. Talk about inhumane, dairy, IMO, is one of the most inhumane industries, and I am not talking about slaughter, either (which they do to the calves).

The fact is, we are over run with horses. We are also over run with dogs & cats and we slaughter (or if you prefer the euphamism, euthanize) them, too.

The suggestion that an unwanted horse should be euthanized rather than be taken to auction (with the possibility of being sold to a kill buyer) or sold to a private individual (who could be a kill buyer) is, IMO, kind of ridiculous. Most people have invested a lot of money in their horses and would like to, and should, get some kind of return on their investment. There is no return on that investment when euthanizing (and I am not talking about very old or sick horses), plus that is more investment. Euthanizing isn't a bad idea, but what do you do with the body? Most localities do not allow for burial on site, so the knackers come to get the body.

The horse is used for something, even if it is only fertilizer, and is just as dead as if it had been sent to slaughter. Even euthanizing can be traumatic for a horse and if not done properly can cause a lot of suffering (for both the horse & the human).

I guess I've said enough on this subject. I think Randy had some good alternative ideas and SG (Southerngurl) also had some good points.

[justbcos]

It sells at approx. $15 - $20 per pound in fine restaurants. It is not going to feed the poor, or starving people in other countries.

Sorry, but $15-$20/pound is hardly expensive meat. Ever check the price you pay for a steak? At Outback, $15 for a 6 ounce portion (that's less than 1/2 a pound...)

[Randi]

$15-$20 per pound may be wholesale price? It is eaten in the finer restaurants. Point being that it is not going towards feeding the poor and homeless in other countries.

[PaCe2WN]

Just thought I'd *bump* this up...the topic's been brought up in another thread.

[patch]

Where they got in trouble was when they wanted to go against the law and see huge profits for " in the loop "agents making herds of wild horses be processed down the pike to cavel. It's plain as pig tracks in the snow if you want to research it. I believe in peoples property rights and that includes your horse but those Mustangs are mine and yours period. There was no way the law should have been questioned and it took a corupt administration with only financial gains to wreck it . It's like every other segment of our public land, they are massacring our timber, horribly jumping backward in pollution control on industriy an ETC!!! There is not debate where there is fact. In my opinion though, I have to say yes, people should have a right to properly kill and butcher equines for human consumption " if" they adhere to strict enforced regulations which they will not do because it cost money. Do you believe Ronald Reagan passed a law ending horse meat used in our Armed Forces ? The meat slaughter industry as a whole has worked very hard and spent money to create a system with the very minimum stress on the animals ( pork and beef especially ) because it improves the product. I have talked with animal behaviorist Temple Grandin who has designed the equipment over half of the nations plants have converted to. Actually , and this will sound adsurd, but if there were many more kill plants that were modern and proper you could see horses not stressed and being utilized without the suffering.

Every American should be against suffering by anything, anywhere, right ?