lol! yes, Tom Stovall is an old very "eloquent" farrier who'd spit in your face if you called him that. Doubt anyone could summarize the dilemna any better than he did on that post at www.horseshoes.com.
My own view really was stated by Jellac--first thing, horse people (somebody) has got to get in and turn this thing around. Most obviously we need slaughter plants, and we need them to be humane, both in destruction and transport. Is it really beyond, say, the Grayson Jockey Club or some other university researchers to come up with a humane slaughter method and the carcass also be fit for consumption?
Nobody commented on Casalc's post! While I also am from other than horses are livestock crowd, obviously horses are livestock in many parts.
Casalc noted:
1. The method of horse slaughter at the U.S. Plants was humane. Suspect that is prrobably true.
2. Close the slaughter plants and an increase in neglect is likely. We're seeing that already in our area.
3. If Slaughter is banned there'll be an increase in adoption--this would qualify as the "ostrich" view of the demand for horses.
I get distrubed by posts like Ms. Marli. There she goes to a kill yard and picks out a horse, interfering with the natural process that's going forward as if she knows better, and that picking one horse out of hundreds is doing anybody any good at all. What are the odds for the horse she picked out, and, what really is her motive in posting about it? This is the stuff that to me has to be turned around.
Horse Slaughter, the next chapter - you should read this!
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
-
ratherrapid
- Grade II Winner
- Posts: 1276
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:04 pm
- Location: kansas city, missouri
- Contact:
winds wrote: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.
The AAEP (American Association of Equine Practitioners) is against the bill (that is not an exclusively QH group) as is anyone with any sense. Most of the most rabid support comes from people who wouldn't know the difference between a horse and a cow. The bill will hurt the horse business and will contribute to much more abuse from starvation.
winds wrote: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.
Is a quarterhorse any less tasty than a thoroughbred? 9 out of 10 frenchmen prefer a more meaty breed like the quartherhorse. Then again there are the organic types that prefer the "free-range" qualities of the mustang.
-
summerhorse
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:40 am
- Location: Panama City, FL
- Contact:
Casalc noted:
1. The method of horse slaughter at the U.S. Plants was humane. Suspect that is prrobably true.
This is NOT true. To be true the horse would have to be restrained and shot in the head and killed with one shot. The horses are never restrained, they are often hit multiple times with the bolt gun or knife (if you are in Juarez) and the bolt gun has been scientifically proven to cause GREAT PAIN before the horse loses unconsciousness AND that the average horse regains consciousness within 30 seconds which means plenty of time for them to feel being hung up by one foot on a hook and having their throats cut.
As I said before it would be more humane to simply cut their throats! It is less painful and they lose consciousness faster BUT they still must be restrained and cut properly. Which requires training and skill and duh, a restraint device.
What is fine for one species does not necessarily translate to another.
2. Close the slaughter plants and an increase in neglect is likely. We're seeing that already in our area.
There has never been any correlation found between stopping slaughter and horse neglect. In fact it can be like moving a mountain to get a neglectful owner to part with their horses because they're JUST FINE. Go ahead and ask them, they'll tell you. These horses rarely go to kill pens because that would take even MORE effort than tossing some hay out to them.
What is linked to neglect is economic forces of which we are all being hit with. Hay prices are sky high in many areas, gas is high everywhere, everything has gone up but I bet most of us are still carting home the same take home pay. Or less if you get hit with higher insurance rates.
Loss of slaughter availability does lead to decreased theft as it is much harder then to move the "hot' horse quickly and the profit is decreased so people might not be willing to go for jail for it.
In IL when Cavel burned down there was an initial spike in negelct cases then neglect cases went down. Possibly because some of the chief neglecters are kill buyers who gather these horses and toss them in pens and often don't feed them enough or bother to separate or treat injuries.
Other than that there was not a significant correlation between neglect and slaughter availability indicating you are probably dealing with mostly separate populations. People who ship to auctions/plants and people who don't. (both can be neglecters but remember KBs are not buying up "shells" i.e. racks of bones. They want the FAT horses and the YOUNG horses. imagine how tough a skinny 25 year old would be.
3. If Slaughter is banned there'll be an increase in adoption--this would qualify as the "ostrich" view of the demand for horses.
Eventually this would be true as once raising surplus horses is no longer profitable (in fact costs money to dispose of them) most of these people would STOP breeding so many horses. There will always always always be horses that are excess for one reason or another but not nearly so many if those 50 ranchers or pseudo breeders (the hoarders thinking they are breeding something rare) stop running a stallion with those 300 mares every year. Then they will have 300 mares the next year instead of 300 mares with 250-300 foals at side... One ranch I read about in TX had 500 mares! WHO NEEDS 500 MARES???? (ranch mares I mean although I don't think even Coolmore needs 500 mares) And yes every mare exposed to a stallion. They register the best (if they register at all) and ship the rest to the auction when weaned. Most are shaggy, wormy, never been touched and less than beautiful. Yeah big market for that.
Once these people stop flooding the market and the horses that NEED to be euthanized are euthanized the market will find an equilibrium. once the easy out of slaughter is gone then maybe these BYB will realize it cost them more just to drive that foal to auction then they got from it.
And as I mentioned before and somebody above also mentioned there will be no KB's gathering horses from all over the country into a few states (where incidently there are already tons of horses!). It is much easier to find a home for those 15 horses in one county than 100,000 in a few horse saturated states.
Even if those 15 have to be euthanized that is still a pittance money wise compared to what it would cost to "rescue" them, rehab, transport and find homes for them if they can be rehomed. More likely half would have to be euthanized leaving 7 horses per year to be rehomed in each county. That would not be difficult almost anywhere.
1. The method of horse slaughter at the U.S. Plants was humane. Suspect that is prrobably true.
This is NOT true. To be true the horse would have to be restrained and shot in the head and killed with one shot. The horses are never restrained, they are often hit multiple times with the bolt gun or knife (if you are in Juarez) and the bolt gun has been scientifically proven to cause GREAT PAIN before the horse loses unconsciousness AND that the average horse regains consciousness within 30 seconds which means plenty of time for them to feel being hung up by one foot on a hook and having their throats cut.
As I said before it would be more humane to simply cut their throats! It is less painful and they lose consciousness faster BUT they still must be restrained and cut properly. Which requires training and skill and duh, a restraint device.
What is fine for one species does not necessarily translate to another.
2. Close the slaughter plants and an increase in neglect is likely. We're seeing that already in our area.
There has never been any correlation found between stopping slaughter and horse neglect. In fact it can be like moving a mountain to get a neglectful owner to part with their horses because they're JUST FINE. Go ahead and ask them, they'll tell you. These horses rarely go to kill pens because that would take even MORE effort than tossing some hay out to them.
What is linked to neglect is economic forces of which we are all being hit with. Hay prices are sky high in many areas, gas is high everywhere, everything has gone up but I bet most of us are still carting home the same take home pay. Or less if you get hit with higher insurance rates.
Loss of slaughter availability does lead to decreased theft as it is much harder then to move the "hot' horse quickly and the profit is decreased so people might not be willing to go for jail for it.
In IL when Cavel burned down there was an initial spike in negelct cases then neglect cases went down. Possibly because some of the chief neglecters are kill buyers who gather these horses and toss them in pens and often don't feed them enough or bother to separate or treat injuries.
Other than that there was not a significant correlation between neglect and slaughter availability indicating you are probably dealing with mostly separate populations. People who ship to auctions/plants and people who don't. (both can be neglecters but remember KBs are not buying up "shells" i.e. racks of bones. They want the FAT horses and the YOUNG horses. imagine how tough a skinny 25 year old would be.
3. If Slaughter is banned there'll be an increase in adoption--this would qualify as the "ostrich" view of the demand for horses.
Eventually this would be true as once raising surplus horses is no longer profitable (in fact costs money to dispose of them) most of these people would STOP breeding so many horses. There will always always always be horses that are excess for one reason or another but not nearly so many if those 50 ranchers or pseudo breeders (the hoarders thinking they are breeding something rare) stop running a stallion with those 300 mares every year. Then they will have 300 mares the next year instead of 300 mares with 250-300 foals at side... One ranch I read about in TX had 500 mares! WHO NEEDS 500 MARES???? (ranch mares I mean although I don't think even Coolmore needs 500 mares) And yes every mare exposed to a stallion. They register the best (if they register at all) and ship the rest to the auction when weaned. Most are shaggy, wormy, never been touched and less than beautiful. Yeah big market for that.
Once these people stop flooding the market and the horses that NEED to be euthanized are euthanized the market will find an equilibrium. once the easy out of slaughter is gone then maybe these BYB will realize it cost them more just to drive that foal to auction then they got from it.
And as I mentioned before and somebody above also mentioned there will be no KB's gathering horses from all over the country into a few states (where incidently there are already tons of horses!). It is much easier to find a home for those 15 horses in one county than 100,000 in a few horse saturated states.
Even if those 15 have to be euthanized that is still a pittance money wise compared to what it would cost to "rescue" them, rehab, transport and find homes for them if they can be rehomed. More likely half would have to be euthanized leaving 7 horses per year to be rehomed in each county. That would not be difficult almost anywhere.
Every mighty oak was once an acorn that stood its ground.
casallc wrote:
The AAEP (American Association of Equine Practitioners) is against the bill (that is not an exclusively QH group) as is anyone with any sense. Most of the most rabid support comes from people who wouldn't know the difference between a horse and a cow.
I take offense to this statement. I can pick a horse out from a cow at 50 feet - without my much-needed glasses! You are generalizing and categorizing those who are against horse slaughter without any basis on fact.
winds wrote:casallac,
If you're trying to be funny you missed the mark. I don't agree with your barbaric way of thinking or ideals. You should not own horses for you don't appreciate their beauty and majesty.
winds
Oh! I'm riddled with remorse. How could I have been so insensitive. Now can I own a horse?
Lisann wrote:casallc wrote:
The AAEP (American Association of Equine Practitioners) is against the bill (that is not an exclusively QH group) as is anyone with any sense. Most of the most rabid support comes from people who wouldn't know the difference between a horse and a cow.
I take offense to this statement. I can pick a horse out from a cow at 50 feet - without my much-needed glasses! You are generalizing and categorizing those who are against horse slaughter without any basis on fact.
MOST
-
BridledObsession
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:40 am
- Location: Grantville, PA
casallc wrote:winds wrote:casallac,
If you're trying to be funny you missed the mark. I don't agree with your barbaric way of thinking or ideals. You should not own horses for you don't appreciate their beauty and majesty.
winds
Oh! I'm riddled with remorse. How could I have been so insensitive. Now can I own a horse?
Play nice. The unfortunate reality is, anyone can. Sort of like, anyone can get a driver's license, own a gun and/or reproduce. There's alot of stranger-than-fiction stuff like that going on.
BridledObsession wrote:casallc wrote:winds wrote:casallac,
If you're trying to be funny you missed the mark. I don't agree with your barbaric way of thinking or ideals. You should not own horses for you don't appreciate their beauty and majesty.
winds
Oh! I'm riddled with remorse. How could I have been so insensitive. Now can I own a horse?
Play nice. The unfortunate reality is, anyone can. Sort of like, anyone can get a driver's license, own a gun and/or reproduce. There's alot of stranger-than-fiction stuff like that going on.
Actually that is incorrect not anyone can get a drivers license (age, physical ability, prior record etc.) own a gun ( criminal record, age, mental condition) reproduce (again age, sterility etc) but anyone can own a horse, and a lot of people that shouldn't - do.
-
BridledObsession
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:40 am
- Location: Grantville, PA
casallc wrote:BridledObsession wrote:casallc wrote:winds wrote:casallac,
If you're trying to be funny you missed the mark. I don't agree with your barbaric way of thinking or ideals. You should not own horses for you don't appreciate their beauty and majesty.
winds
Oh! I'm riddled with remorse. How could I have been so insensitive. Now can I own a horse?
Play nice. The unfortunate reality is, anyone can. Sort of like, anyone can get a driver's license, own a gun and/or reproduce. There's alot of stranger-than-fiction stuff like that going on.
Actually that is incorrect not anyone can get a drivers license (age, physical ability, prior record etc.) own a gun ( criminal record, age, mental condition) reproduce (again age, sterility etc) but anyone can own a horse, and a lot of people that shouldn't - do.
Feeling like splitting hairs today?
It certainly has been a rather cranky and argumentative day on the forum!!
So, let's agree that lots of people own horses that shouldn't........kind of like lots of people get married that shouldn't or run for office that shouldn't...................I give up.
-
KamiBrooks
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 12:00 am
casallc wrote:Lisann wrote:I take offense to this statement. I can pick a horse out from a cow at 50 feet - without my much-needed glasses! You are generalizing and categorizing those who are against horse slaughter without any basis on fact.
MOST
Cassallc
An interesting perspective, given that the Myth/Truth information you posted is propoganda originating from the beef industry (among others) and has been repeatedly proven to be riddled with bad logic and mis-information.
Here is the origin of your post: http://www.commonhorsesense.com/myth_fact_sheet.html
winds wrote:casallac,
If you're trying to be funny you missed the mark. I don't agree with your barbaric way of thinking or ideals. You should not own horses for you don't appreciate their beauty and majesty.
winds
Demonizing a poster by what he happens to write on a message board doesn't help the ol' credibility winds. I don't know if you've actually met anyone in real life whose posts (on the Internet in general not just here) you've followed, but it can be an out of body experience. You'll find that the poster who has endless advice on training more often than not has never actually owned a horse and has only been to the track 3 times. A poster who wears her heart on her sleeve for all the abused ponies keeps her own horse in a way that is not exactly call animal control abusive, but makes you silently say to yourself "Oh brother." And then there are those who like to drop bombs and watch people froth. They are sometimes the nicest people off the computer and a lot of them do it because they get tired of Posters like 1 and 2.
I don't know who casallc is but you then neither do you. I just don't know how you know by a couple of posts who in here should own or not own horses or even what their thinking or ideals is.
If Casallac can post something that is in my opinion and others is repulsive then I should be able to respond with what I think about them because of their post. I don't know anyone that would post something like casallac did and be a nice person. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
If this is their way of thinking regarding horses, I don't think they should own any. I have worked in the industry for 30 years, I took out my trainers license in MD (1983 - 1984), I have managed farms and been an assistant trainer to 3 trainers in MD. I have owned a racehorse, pinhooked (one horse) and now own a mare. I am always complimented on how my horses look. I've never had any trouble getting excercise riders for my yearlings because my reputation at that training track was excellent. Reputation working with horses is very important.
I don't like reading the posting of someone who has no respect for this noble animal. I have no respect of them.
If you have a problem with my responses to casallac's repulsive postings, don't read them.
winds
I'm usually a very mellow happy go lucky person, but this hits a nerve.
If this is their way of thinking regarding horses, I don't think they should own any. I have worked in the industry for 30 years, I took out my trainers license in MD (1983 - 1984), I have managed farms and been an assistant trainer to 3 trainers in MD. I have owned a racehorse, pinhooked (one horse) and now own a mare. I am always complimented on how my horses look. I've never had any trouble getting excercise riders for my yearlings because my reputation at that training track was excellent. Reputation working with horses is very important.
I don't like reading the posting of someone who has no respect for this noble animal. I have no respect of them.
If you have a problem with my responses to casallac's repulsive postings, don't read them.
winds
I'm usually a very mellow happy go lucky person, but this hits a nerve.