The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the ruling of a lower court that the 1949 law making it illegal to slaughter horses for the purpose of human consumption in Texas. Crown is already being told to shut down, by the information I could glean. I don't know yet about Bel-Tex. Anyone who has any information regarding the issue, would love to hear from you.
Small time breeders who have focused on quality, rather than quantity, I believe will have the upper hand if this occurs and after the dust settles. If the Thoroughbred racing industry fails to respond, there will be no saving it. Horses will have to be allowed to mature more before being put in training, they will have to be allowed to race longer, at more advanced ages, for their owners, like in Europe and Britain. Trainers who can keep them sound for racing will have a better shot in an environment of limited saleability.
I would advise people in the racing industry to be prepared. I believe this decision will be upheld by the supreme court, if the plant owners are foolish enough to take it that far, and I also believe laws will be passed that allow the federal government to be the only entity that can legally sell horses to slaughter.
I believe certain things, because I look ahead and see the effects of this on the already strained economy, with draught, etc. I don't think we have a big surplus of horses at present, because many people have already sent them to the plants when they could find no hay, or could not afford what was available.
I am concerned that certain individual rights to private property will be cast aside in trying to address new problems that arise. I also will be glad if they just shut down all the plants and let owners and breeders and racing adjust to the new situation in a natural way. In fact, because I am good at getting horses sound to the races, maybe this change will be better for me. Somehow, I doubt that, but I'm hopeful, optimistic.
These are just my rambling thoughts, without a whole lot of research. Anyone else have any thoughts?
Shutting down Texas horse slaughter plants.
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
-
angelsprite
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:11 pm
- Location: waller, Texas
- Contact:
Dallas Crown also produces "horse in a bag" for zoos and wildlife centers. Since it is not for human consumption, this will likely continue.
The Thoroughbred is not going to be affected all that much. A couple of years ago, I researched an article on horse slaughter and got quite a lot of statistics. In a given month at one plant, about 2400 equines were processed, I believe. Of those, about 1600 were Quarter Horses, I think there were less than 200 Thoroughbreds. If you extrapolate that to the numbers across the country, you might say 9%? So 9,000 Thoroughbreds out of 100K horses? It does mean there will be another 9,000 unwanted Thoroughbreds to place/feed each year. But the breeding industry does not raise them for slaughter, and they do not go there in large numbers.
On the other hand, it is going to cut the Quarter Horse industry a new butt hole. 75,000 unwanted Quarter Horses will likely back up and clog an industry already degraded by AI and embryo transfer.
The Thoroughbred is not going to be affected all that much. A couple of years ago, I researched an article on horse slaughter and got quite a lot of statistics. In a given month at one plant, about 2400 equines were processed, I believe. Of those, about 1600 were Quarter Horses, I think there were less than 200 Thoroughbreds. If you extrapolate that to the numbers across the country, you might say 9%? So 9,000 Thoroughbreds out of 100K horses? It does mean there will be another 9,000 unwanted Thoroughbreds to place/feed each year. But the breeding industry does not raise them for slaughter, and they do not go there in large numbers.
On the other hand, it is going to cut the Quarter Horse industry a new butt hole. 75,000 unwanted Quarter Horses will likely back up and clog an industry already degraded by AI and embryo transfer.
So Run for the Roses, as fast as you can.....
-
angelsprite
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:11 pm
- Location: waller, Texas
- Contact:
Madelyn,
Many young TBs go through before being tattooed, after they break down, with no papers, and are listed as grade horses. The numbers are unreliable. We produce about 36,000 young TBs a year, and 9,000 from that number means 1/4 of the TBs we produce annually find their way to the killers, even with the low number considering only the tattooed and papered horses that are reported.
I agree, the slaughter will not stop unless the plants are closed. The fact is, they are trying to make them close. They really don't want them in their communities because it's a nuisance and doesn't provide enough jobs to make it worth enduring the stench.
That's not to say the plants won't open some other place. They probably will move up to Chicago or down to Mexico. The fed wants to make it illegal to export horses for slaughter as well. The fed is NOT trying to stop horse killing though. They are only talking about stopping the slaughter for human consumption, as you pointed out. If they stopped all the horse slaughter, things would change.
Assuming that happened, and picking up your assertion that with all the QHs backing up, clogging the chain, I can see it turning into a problem for both the QH and TB industry. I know breeding and training practices won't change until they have to. It will take years, but I believe it will be a market driven, natural change, not a forced change. Owners will look at their bottom line, feeding 3 or 4 broke down 2 year olds that they can't sell for every 1 that makes it to the track. That will change things and better trainers will have a better shot at getting horses, instead of just the trainers who can afford to advertise in the national mags, but cripple one horse after another. I'm trying to be optimistic here. Word of mouth would be the best advertising if things really changed, with owners warning each other against certain people, and recommending others.
But I think you're right. I don't see it really having a dramatic effect. Who knows? We'll see.
Many young TBs go through before being tattooed, after they break down, with no papers, and are listed as grade horses. The numbers are unreliable. We produce about 36,000 young TBs a year, and 9,000 from that number means 1/4 of the TBs we produce annually find their way to the killers, even with the low number considering only the tattooed and papered horses that are reported.
I agree, the slaughter will not stop unless the plants are closed. The fact is, they are trying to make them close. They really don't want them in their communities because it's a nuisance and doesn't provide enough jobs to make it worth enduring the stench.
That's not to say the plants won't open some other place. They probably will move up to Chicago or down to Mexico. The fed wants to make it illegal to export horses for slaughter as well. The fed is NOT trying to stop horse killing though. They are only talking about stopping the slaughter for human consumption, as you pointed out. If they stopped all the horse slaughter, things would change.
Assuming that happened, and picking up your assertion that with all the QHs backing up, clogging the chain, I can see it turning into a problem for both the QH and TB industry. I know breeding and training practices won't change until they have to. It will take years, but I believe it will be a market driven, natural change, not a forced change. Owners will look at their bottom line, feeding 3 or 4 broke down 2 year olds that they can't sell for every 1 that makes it to the track. That will change things and better trainers will have a better shot at getting horses, instead of just the trainers who can afford to advertise in the national mags, but cripple one horse after another. I'm trying to be optimistic here. Word of mouth would be the best advertising if things really changed, with owners warning each other against certain people, and recommending others.
But I think you're right. I don't see it really having a dramatic effect. Who knows? We'll see.
angelsprite wrote:The numbers are unreliable.
This part is correct.
angelsprite wrote:We produce about 36,000 young TBs a year, and 9,000 from that number means 1/4 of the TBs we produce annually find their way to the killers
This part is not. It's hyperbole from the anti-slaughter fanatics.
Saying 9k out of 36k or 1/4 of the TBs produced annually goes to slaughter is incredibly misleading because it encourages the notion that more horses go to slaughter than really do.
While it may be 9k TBs each year, it is NOT 1/4 of the annual crop nor are they all from the SAME crop.
If you're going to make your stance on the numbers, you need to make sure you have the RIGHT numbers (or at least a better approximation of them).
Horses going to slaughter are, on average, in the 8-15yo range. That means there are, at minimum, EIGHT YEARS of crops that contribute to the 9k TBs killed each year. 8 years time 36k foals is 288k horses.
Start with 36k horses. Add 36k horses every year for the next 8 years (remember, you can't immediately subtract 9k because they aren't killing 9k yearlings every year. You have to wait until the oldest horse at the slaughter to begin subtracting the 9k). In year 9 and every subsequent year, add 36k horses and subtract 9k. After 16 years, you've produced 576k horses of which 72k have gone to slaughter. 72k/576k = 0.125 or 12.5% of horses born in a 16 year period.
On pure numbers, slaughter is not the biggest threat to Thoroughbreds.
Sam wrote:Start with 36k horses. Add 36k horses every year for the next 8 years (remember, you can't immediately subtract 9k because they aren't killing 9k yearlings every year. You have to wait until the oldest horse at the slaughter to begin subtracting the 9k). In year 9 and every subsequent year, add 36k horses and subtract 9k. After 16 years, you've produced 576k horses of which 72k have gone to slaughter. 72k/576k = 0.125 or 12.5% of horses born in a 16 year period.
Why only consider the first sixteen years? Why not consider one hundred years? I'm sure you're aware that your 12.5% is going to asymptotically approach 25%.
The problem with your example is that we're past year nine.
andy wrote:Why only consider the first sixteen years? Why not consider one hundred years? I'm sure you're aware that your 12.5% is going to asymptotically approach 25%.
If you think about that statement logically, you'll know why.
Horses don't live to be 100
andy wrote:The problem with your example is that we're past year nine.
And this is why the anti-slaughter team needs to be very careful how they articulate in percentages how many horses go to slaughter each year.
Year 1: 36k
Year 2: 36k + 36k = 72k
Year 3: 72k + 36k = 108k
Year 4: 108k + 36k = 144k
Year 5: 144k + 36k = 180k
Year 6: 180k + 36k = 216k
Year 7: 216k + 36k = 252k
Year 8: 252k + 36k = 288k
Year 9: 288k + 36k = 324k - 9k = 315k // 9k/324k = 2.7%
Year 10: 315k + 36k = 351k - 9k = 342k // 9k/351k = 2.56% // 18k/360k = 5%
Year 11: 342k + 36k = 378k - 9k = 369k // 9k/378k = 2.48% // 27k/396k = 6.8%
Year 12: 369k + 36k = 405k - 9k = 396k // 9k/405k = 2.22% // 36k/432k = 8.3%
Year 13: 396k + 36k = 432k - 9k = 423k // 9k/432k = 1.96% // 45k/468k = 9.6%
Year 14: 423k + 36k = 459k - 9k = 450k // 9k/459k = 1.96% // 54k/504k = 10.7%
Year 15: 450k + 36k = 486k - 9k = 477k // 9k/486k = 1.85% // 63k/540k = 11.6%
Year 16: 477k + 36k = 513k - 9k = 504k // 9k/513k = 1.75% // 72k/576k = 12.5%
Year 17: 504k + 36k = 540k - 9k = 531k // 9k/540k = 1.67% // 81k/612k = 13.2%
Year 18: 531k + 36k = 567k - 9k = 558k // 9k/567k = 1.59% // 90k/648k = 13.8%
Year 19: 558k + 36k = 594k - 9k = 585k // 9k/594k = 1.52% // 99k/684k = 14.5%
Year 20: 585k + 36k = 621k - 9k = 612k // 9k/621k = 1.45% // 108k/720k = 15%
Year 21: 612k + 36k = 648k - 9k = 639k // 9k/648k = 1.39% // 117k/756k = 15.5%
Year 22: 639k + 36k = 675k - 9k = 666k // 9k/675k = 1.33% // 126k/792k = 15.9%
Year 23: 666k + 36k = 702k - 9k = 693k // 9k/702k = 1.28% // 135k/828k = 16.3%
Year 24: 693k + 36k = 720k - 9k = 711k // 9k/720k = 1.25% // 144k/864k = 16.7%
Year 25: 711k + 36k = 747k - 9k = 738k // 9k/747k = 1.20% // 153k/900k = 17%
The truth is the 9k killed each year is never more than about 2.7% of the LIVING population at any one time and is actually much less than that.
The anti-slaughter fanatics would rather use the percentage of total produced vs total killed that grows by about 0.5% each year because it's a larger number gauranteed to play on the uneducated masses sympathies.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of slaughter on the whole. I just can't stand rhetoric of any kind.
What is (collective) your objection to slaughter?
Is it how they are transported and killed? Fine, but then your complaint is with the slaughter industry as a whole and you should be working just as hard to change how cattle and hogs are slaughtered.
Is it that you disagree with people eating horsemeat because you think it's 'gross'? Sorry, but tough shit. I would never eat deer or rabbit because I don't have that kind of palate, but for me to say someone else can't is extreme narcissistic.