Horse Slaughter, the next chapter - you should read this!

General on-topic discussion.

Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster

User avatar
Sysonby
Breeder's Cup Contender
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: California

Postby Sysonby » Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:21 am

summerhorse wrote:

but in the end people that make their living off animals need to step up and take responsibility for the fact these are living breathing things and should be treated with a modicum of respect and decency. If somebody doesn't want to do that perhaps they can find a business where they work with inanimate objects where it doesn't matter if they are just thrown at when they are done with them.


How about people who own horses as pets, don't train them, let them decline, get into a financial jam and dump them for the nothing that they are worth?

My guess from what I've seen owning horses for the last 15 years or so and seeing the day to day in lesson, racing and show barns of different disciplines as well as being in one of the largest public boarding stables in the country is that THAT is the real problem numbers wise and not the pro trained horses of any discipline.

I know people who make their living on horses make a convenient scapegoat but the very definition means that they tend to be more professional and give better care and value to the animals. They usually really like horses--believe me there are easier ways to make a living.

The REAL problem I suspect is more ordinary. The well meaning ignorant and the yahoos who buy a horse because it seems like a fun thing to do--except that the horse needs more care than they expected and it's more expensive than they thought or the horse is poorly trained and it scares them or they lose their job and have no financial safety net or their kid loses interest or the horse colics or founders...I've seen so many permutations of the above it's not funny.

License to breed? Frankly there should be a license just to own a horse.

User avatar
summerhorse
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Panama City, FL
Contact:

Postby summerhorse » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:00 am

I agree, there should be a license or something and if you don't get it renewed your horses get taken.

Going by the low end auction the majority of the unbroke horses seem to come from big ranches or large breeders. You'll see broodmare only, not broke or halter broke only (what kind of moron can't even H ALTER break a horse? but raise babies off her year after year). Then there are the babies they raise off them that they didn't quite get around to breaking. The BYB is a problem but by the sheer numbers it is the large breeders or ranch (reg. or unreg.) horses that put most of those wild ones out there. Plus the PMU, rodeo, and polo breeders who seem to think that why breed 10 mares when you can breed EVERYTHING. Who cares if the last 2 years worth of foals are still hanging out? There's enough blame to go around for sure.
Every mighty oak was once an acorn that stood its ground.

casallc
Restricted Stakes Winner
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:43 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Postby casallc » Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:55 am

HORSE SLAUGHTER MYTHS AND FACTS
MYTH: Horse slaughter must be stopped because it is inhumane.
FACT: The euthanasia method used at the plants occurs before processing, and this method is humane, according to the
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the USDA, which regulates the practice. The method meets specific
humane requirements set forth by AVMA's Panel on Euthanasia, the U.S. Congress,1 the American Association of Equine Practitioners,
and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) Statement on Euthanasia because it results in instantaneous brain death.
The plants are required to have USDA veterinarians on site supervising the euthanasia of each horse during the entire time the plant is in
operation. The veterinarian is bound by law to stop the process and close the plant immediately if any evidence of inhumane treatment is
witnessed. Retired USDA veterinarians who fulfilled this role are available for interviews.
MYTH: Banning U.S. horse slaughter will not affect our economy since the plants are foreign-owned.
FACT: Hundreds of employees in the United States who work for horse owners, trucking companies, auction houses, shipping
companies and other suppliers will lose their jobs. The plant communities of DeKalb, Illinois, and Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas,
will be especially hard-hit, with each of the local economies taking a predicted hit of $41 million. The value of each horse will
decrease by approximately $300, according to an independent report on the unintended consequences of a horse slaughter ban -- the
ripple effect of which is predicted to cripple the $40 billion U.S. horse industry. The negative impact will be significant, just as it is
when a Toyota plant or other foreign-owned business is closed in any other community.
MYTH: If horse slaughter for human consumption is banned, the processing plants will still accept horses and process them for other
important purposes.
FACT: H.R. 503's ban on processing horses for human consumption will close down the three processing plants, according to
plant owners, and result in:
• Elimination of the only option that provides salvage value to the horse owner for an animal that is no longer serviceable, useful or
desired.
• Elimination of the only USDA-inspected source of equine protein, an essential element in the diet of U.S. zoo animals.
• Elimination of the only large-scale equine research venue for leading schools of veterinary medicine.
• Elimination of the only U.S. source of equine pericardium sacs used in human heart surgeries.
• Elimination of the service plants provide to horse owners by preparing the horse carcasses for acceptance by rendering plants - a
time consuming procedure that the slaughter plants now provide at no cost to the owner.
MYTH: The only way to prevent the inhumane treatment of horses is to BAN the private property right to choose horse processing.
FACT: Congress has already performed its duty by passing laws that govern the humane treatment of horses during
transportation to the plants and onsite. Enforcement of these laws is the role of the USDA and local and state officials, so if there is
ever a compliance problem, these officials will report it.
However, if the right to send a horse to slaughter is taken away from horse owners, the Unintended Consequences paper predicts serious
problems. Nearly half of all horse owners earn between $25,000 and $75,000 per year.3 If these owners are forced to pay $300-$2,000
to dispose of a horse, instead of being able to receive value for their property ($300-400 for processing), the report says that some
owners will have no other option but to abandon the animal, slaughter it themselves and prepare the carcass for rendering, or simply
neglect it by not adequately feeding the horse. Concerns regarding the effects of BSE and other diseases on rendered products have
resulted in a decreasing number of rendering facilities in the U.S., so horse owners are finding it increasingly difficult to find a renderer.
Horse burial is illegal in many areas.
MYTH: The horse industry supports HR 503.
FACT: The American Quarter Horse Association (largest U.S. horse organization), the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture
(which has jurisdiction over the legislation), and 190 other horse, veterinary, cattle, and agriculture organizations OPPOSE this
horse slaughter ban based on fundamental economic, humane and public health issues. Many horse owners support keeping the
horse processing option, even if some choose not to use it.
MYTH: If U.S. horse slaughter is banned, Kentucky Derby champions like Ferdinand will be saved from slaughter in the future.
FACT: Ferdinand was slaughtered in Japan, and this ban will not prevent the foreign slaughter of any future unwanted horses.
After horses leave this country -- whether they go to Mexico, Latin America, or Japan -- passage of HR 503 would not prevent them
from being slaughtered in one of many foreign slaughterhouses, where seven million horses are slaughtered each year for human
consumption. The legislation would simply eliminate the U.S. plants: the most stringently regulated and humane animal processing
plants in the world.
MYTH: "Some horses...are improperly stunned and are conscious when they are hoisted by a rear leg to have their throats cut," states
the HSUS horse slaughter fact sheet posted at www.hsus.org.
FACT: Each and every horse is humanely euthanized before any processing activities occur and the three plants have a
documented track record of humane treatment. In fact, USDA veterinarian inspectors are present for the humane euthanasia of
every horse, and are mandated by law to stop the process if the horses aren't rendered brain dead before they are moved and processed.
Not only is humane treatment the law, it is good business practice. Treating the horses well and minimizing their pain and stress keeps
the plants operating smoothly and efficiently.
MYTH: Horse neglect did not increase in the past when the number slaughtered horses declined, so if HR 503 passes and the number
of horses slaughtered drops from 90,000 to zero, there will be no increase in neglect, according to bill sponsor Rep. Ed Whitfield (RKy).

FACT: An increase in neglect is likely, according to university experts, because the ban will take away the only option that
provides salvage value for disposing of the nation's unwanted horses. According to the Unintended Consequences report, "Tens
of thousands of horses could be neglected or abandoned if a processing ban were imposed.....Local and state governments will be
adversely impacted by increased costs of regulation and care of unwanted or neglected horses."
Market forces, not slaughter plants, determine how many horses go to slaughter. Since there is no national system for recording and
tracking horse neglect, there is no way to identify trends or compare trends to slaughter numbers. Each year, a variety of factors dictate
the number of unwanted horses: the number of horses with insurmountable behavior problems, the disposable income of horse owners,
and the market value of horses. The plants are the repository for the unwanted horses that no one else will take.
MYTH: If horse slaughter is banned, people will adopt or buy the unwanted horses.
FACT: The horses that go to slaughter are the unwanted of the unwanted -- often because they can't be ridden, or are
dangerous. Their market value is so low, no one else bought them. A few of the influx of 60,000 to 90,000 unwanted horses may be
adopted. However, if there were such a demand to adopt and care for this type of horse, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management would
have been able to find homes for the thousands of unwanted wild horses that taxpayers paid nearly $40 million to feed and shelter in
2005. The average yearly cost of caring for a horse is $2,300 and many horses live to be 30 years old.
According to a memo from the Congressional Research Service, “A key concern expressed by a number of equine groups is whether the
existing U.S. horse sanctuaries have adequate resources to absorb the large number of animals that could be confiscated or otherwise
diverted from slaughter if this law were to pass…AHPA agrees that no nationwide standard-setting or oversight system is in place and
also that no rescue organizations may have the resources or business capabilities to take in large numbers of horses.”6
MYTH: Slaughter plants should be closed because that's where stolen horses end up.
FACT: There is no evidence of a stolen horse problem at the plants, so banning horse slaughter can't be a solution. The three
horse slaughter plants document every horse that arrives, and very few, if any, stolen horses have been found. In Texas, as of 1997, a
law enforcement official onsite inspects each horse and checks it against reports of stolen horses. In Illinois, horses arriving are also
checked against records of stolen horses. Why would someone steal a horse worth $3,000 or $800 to sell it for $300 to a processing
plant?
MYTH: Horses are treated poorly during transport to slaughter.
FACT: The treatment of horses to slaughter is stringently regulated. No other animal has humane treatment laws governing its
transportation to slaughter, so horses are already protected more than any other livestock animal.
USDA reports that the regulations are being enforced. In fact, an analysis published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association in 1999, conducted by renowned animal welfare expert Temple Grandin, PhD, stated "...owner abuse or neglect (before
transportation) is the primary cause of severe welfare problems in horses arriving at slaughter plants." Although USDA has increased the
number of inspections of horse transportation to slaughter, inspectors have found no evidence of a systemic problem, according to a
recent USDA letter to the House Committee on Agriculture.

MYTH: Video on anti-slaughter Web sites proves that horse slaughter is not humane.
FACT: The footage of horses being mistreated may have been shot in Mexico or Latin America, but it was NOT filmed in any
of the three U.S. plants operating today, nor does it reflect the humane euthanasia process mandated by current federal laws
and regulations. To the plants' and their regulators' knowledge, there is no evidence that demonstrates a systemic problem of
horses being mistreated in the three U.S. processing plants. Therefore, there is no defendable reason to ban horse processing for
human consumption.
MYTH: Americans should support HR 503 because animal rights groups say it will improve horse welfare.
FACT: The Humane Society of the United States also said it would improve the welfare of animals saved after Hurricane
Katrina, but HSUS is currently under investigation by the Louisiana Attorney General, who is questioning exactly how they
improved animal welfare, especially since they raised $30 million to pursue this end.

User avatar
summerhorse
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Panama City, FL
Contact:

Postby summerhorse » Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:33 am

The slaughter plans were ALL in violation of the (whatever they kill the Humane killing act) which requires the animal to be restrained so that they could be stunned with ONE shot. Horses were never restrained and I have yet to see a video where it took ONE shot, all took at least two, some many more.

Studies have proved that the captive bolt is not humane for horses. Does a good job on cattle which is probably because it was designed for them!

The industry is a TINY one compared to others. The plants had fewer than 100 employees each. Other people who worked "for" the industry could just as easily buy, sell and transport other livestock. I'd be more concerned about auto factories that close down putting 38,000 jobs in the dust bin. That can be an entire TOWN or REGION that suffers terribly.

Both Cavel and Dallas Crown were in multiple violations of envirnonmental laws/regulations and years behind in fines. I don't know about Beltex. All 3 could easily be fitted to do cattle or other animals instead.
Every mighty oak was once an acorn that stood its ground.

ratherrapid
Grade II Winner
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:04 pm
Location: kansas city, missouri
Contact:

Postby ratherrapid » Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:06 pm

casalc, i admire your restraint!

summerhorse, were all your arguments true as illogical to the issue as they are, please tell us what you will do with the 50,000 unwanted horses per year. your $$$ perhaps? or, might ur money be better spent advocating humane slaughter and transport, which might be achievable?

Cathyleabo
Maiden Special Weight
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Turner Oregon

Postby Cathyleabo » Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:20 pm

Sysonby, my point is not directed at legitimate breeders. It is directed at the woman in Lebanon who has 6 generations of sick, lame, inbred horses starving on her property. She never seperates the stallions from the mares, and many of her foals are born to fillies to young to care for them properly.
There are thousands of these places that need to be regulated or shut down completely.
Well behaved women rarely make history.
Unknown

KamiBrooks
Starters Handicap
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 12:00 am

Postby KamiBrooks » Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:39 pm

ratherrapid wrote:casalc, i admire your restraint!

summerhorse, were all your arguments true as illogical to the issue as they are, please tell us what you will do with the 50,000 unwanted horses per year. your $$$ perhaps? or, might ur money be better spent advocating humane slaughter and transport, which might be achievable?


To look at that number in a slightly different way, you are talking about slightly over 16 horse per county within the US (excluding Hawaii) [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_(United_States)#Number_of_counties_per_state ].

So while 50,000 sounds like a very large number, it is also spread out over a very large geographic area.

I agree with euth funds. The horse isn't being clubbed to death. Their experience is the same as if you were going to geld or do any other major surgery.

I also think that stallion owners should have to license any intact male (even sterile and "doesn't know he's a stallion") over 24 mo for a fee of @$150/yr or face fines of $100/day not licensed. So if you're caught with a 4yo Stallion, big time fine! Fees/fines could go into the euth fund. That in itself will take care of many BYBs. Enforcement should be simple (much simpler than abuse/neglect), since there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room to debate if a horse is in tact or not.

AND NAIS would make it all possible if they really wanted to do something useful with that piece of crap program. After all, it's already letting the storm onto our farms without any probably cause.

User avatar
madelyn
Moderator
Posts: 10067
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:53 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Postby madelyn » Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:07 am

Yikes. The fees from Coolmore and Darley alone would be astronomical!
So Run for the Roses, as fast as you can.....

User avatar
winds
Breeder's Cup Contender
Posts: 1765
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:04 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby winds » Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:35 am

All in all what everyone is saying the owners should take responsibility for their horses. I don't think a vet would have a problem helping someone who is down on their financial luck either euthanizing a sick/totally lame horse, you can be billed and pay monthly on it. Or, if it's sound and retrainable finding a good home for it. But there are many programs and farms out there for such a purpose. It just takes some research.

These animals didn't ask to be born, so it is our responsibility to do what is best for them, and I don't think slaughterhouses are the answer. I've only known one horse that went to the killers and if I'd known he was going before hand I would have saved him. He was led onto a trailer with a broken leg. When I worked on that farm, I know it never would have happened, and when I told the owner he was furious. His farm manager told him he had found a buyer for him, the owner thought the horse was going to a new home for a different career. The farm manager almost lost his job over it, but the owner kept him on with tighter restraints when it came to selling injured horses. (Like his office personell took over.) Up until that sale the horses were shot on the farm only when absolutely not useable (ie: a yearling that broke it's forearm, or a horse with wobbles) and the carcass was donated to the local hunt for the hounds.

The manager that did this attrocity, a veternarian. He moved on to another farm under false pretenses and then ruined one of their stake 2 year olds, I don't know where he is right now, not around horses I hope.

winds

kezeli
Allowance Winner
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:50 pm

Postby kezeli » Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:46 am

I could have sworn that I just read that the bill would also make it illeagle to ship out of the country to plants as well. Thus making the transport that has been the biggest thorn in my side illeagle too, so no more cattle/pig trucks with horses in them and inspections of any horses crossing the borders. Don't know how they can accomplish this though, can't even keep people out, not enough border patrol.

casallc
Restricted Stakes Winner
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:43 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Postby casallc » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:01 pm

kezeli wrote:I could have sworn that I just read that the bill would also make it illeagle to ship out of the country to plants as well. Thus making the transport that has been the biggest thorn in my side illeagle too, so no more cattle/pig trucks with horses in them and inspections of any horses crossing the borders. Don't know how they can accomplish this though, can't even keep people out, not enough border patrol.


The bill has not passed and probably never will. They can't even get the budget passed let alone this piece of crap bill.

User avatar
winds
Breeder's Cup Contender
Posts: 1765
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:04 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby winds » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:10 pm

I don't think a bill that saves horses from a horrible unhumane death is a "piece of crap bill".

It seems only the "cowboys" of the QH association, vets who would have to put the horses down, and the people who have a financial gain in the killing of horses are the ones who dislike these bills.

Well, the vets who run their association aren't speaking for the vets in the field, because they don't believe in slaughterhouses. At least not the reputal vets I speak with. They do everything they can to save horses.

winds

I'm not implying that all QH people believe in slaughterhouses, but their association does.

ratherrapid
Grade II Winner
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:04 pm
Location: kansas city, missouri
Contact:

Postby ratherrapid » Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:06 pm

"it appears that this (horse glut) has become a bit of a problem".

response:
"it'll get worse.

It appears the "horses are pets" bunch has finally realized the Law of Unintended Consequences has bitten them in the nalgas. The intent of the law was to stop slaughter, it was to impose our morality on another culture (i.e. we don't eat horses, so nobody else should either.)., but the result of the law will be the imposition of pain, suffering, and probably starvation on tens of thousands of horses which, for one reason or another, are no longer useful to mankind. Before the slaugher for human consumption ban, every horse had two values: a carcass value and a value based on human speculation relative to the use of the horse. When the latter value is zero and the former value has been removed by statute, where does that leave the unwanted horse?

the inability of folks to accept horses as livestock has always been a thing of mystery to me. The rampant anthropormorphism that pervades the industry is probably disney's fault, but, whatever its cause, it damn sure hasn't done Dobbin any favors. A captive bolt or a slow, painful, death wrought by neglect, disease, or starvation: Helluva choice!".

I've posted the above before, by Tom Stovall, Texas farrier, CJF 3/15/07.

Cathyleabo
Maiden Special Weight
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Turner Oregon

Postby Cathyleabo » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:30 am

Easy now, AQHA recognizes the necessary evil of slaughter and wants to make it as humane as possible. Would you rather have a quick relatively painless death, starve to death, or die of neglected injuries and sickness?

I have both QH and TB in my barn and have taken shots from both sides of this issue. Apparently I raise my QH's for the meat and the TB's to run to death on the track.

It is time for the entire equine community to stop bickering and find a solution! Stop breeding marginal mares to junk stallions! Stop expecting the government to solve a problem we created!

My soapbox just gave out on me, let me go get a hay bale..........
Well behaved women rarely make history.

Unknown

BridledObsession
Allowance Winner
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:40 am
Location: Grantville, PA

Postby BridledObsession » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:55 am

ratherrapid wrote:" anthropormorphism


D*mn, that was a big word. I'm impressed despite myself.

While I agree that there are horses whose time has come and a humane death is their best option, it seems to me that it should be handled with dignity and respect for life. We provide the same kinds of services for cats and dogs in this country, why not horses? Let's face it. The majority of us know better and would prefer that all animals, even those we intend to eat, be treated as well as possible before and during their death.

If it's true that we cannot avoid or prevent the slaughter of horses for other uses, then the least we can do is more closely monitor this "industry" and impose much tougher standards. Unlike other "livestock", horses are much more aware and involved in their relationship with people.