# Horse Slaughter may not be around for long



## 6e (Sep 10, 2005)

It looks like the re-opening of horse slaughter is a temporary fix to keep horses from being shipped to other countries to be slaughtered. Looks like congress has bi-partisan support to introduce legislation that would stop horse slaughter AND stop exporting of slaughter bound horses. I guess we'll be right back to more horses dumped, starved, given away, mis treated and other wise.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/02/horse-slaughtering-resumes-in-us-as-legislation-languishes-in-congress/


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

Okay ... if that happens my suggestion is to load up half a dozen semi-loads of these unwanted horses, truck them to Washington D. C. and unload them on the White House lawn. Let the idiots that make the regulations figure out what to do with them!


----------



## wolffeathers (Dec 20, 2010)

What an excellent way to compound a problem. 

I think once the re-opening of the slaughter houses has taken effect and they see if it does really help decrease the unwanted population, they will rethink the proposition of banning slaughter. There will always be opposition of killing horses. I had someone throw a fit because we were going to shoot a horse that had ruptured due to colic, in their view we should have spent thousands and tried everything to "save" an already 'dead' horse or simply let it thrash until the vet showed up 3 hours later to "humanely" euthanize it. Because it's much, MUCH more humane to allow an animal to thrash in pain waiting for the vet to come kill it chemically than a gunshot to the head. 

It's unfortunate.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

wolffeathers said:


> What an excellent way to compound a problem.
> 
> Because it's much, MUCH more humane to allow an animal to thrash in pain waiting for the vet to come kill it chemically than a gunshot to the head.


And the euthanizing chemicals are not always effective, there are horses that are resistant and that process can be bad. The only time I had the vet out to euthanize for me, a pony mare that I was so fond of I didn't want to put her down myself ... just age, not an acute problem, turned out to be one of those and I swore never again. I was actually coming back from the house with the gun when the vet managed to get another dose in the vein and get her put down, but would have been so much more humane to just put a bullet in the right place while she was quietly eating her grain.


----------



## 6e (Sep 10, 2005)

I've been told that it can be considered animal cruelty to put an animal down by shooting it, but that is always the way we've handled it. One shot, they're down. No pain, no suffering, no struggling and far less expensive than calling the vet and paying for trip charge and his fees. shrug


----------



## malinda (May 12, 2002)

I'm pretty sure the bill that was passed a couple of months ago really didn't have anything to do with horses or slaughter. It was hidden in a spending bill (which they OF COURSE passed), and I'm fairly certain the politicians never actually read it!


----------



## Lazydaisy67 (Jan 28, 2008)

The whole horse slaughter thing has just ticked me off to no end. The people who screamed the loudest against slaughter live in 700 sq. ft. apartments and have never stepped foot on a farm, let alone scooped poop or tried to come up with extra money to vet a sick animal. If you really want to make an impact, have horse owners apply for a permit or license to breed their animals. More of the problems they're angry and sickened about occur because of irresponsible breeding than with inhumane slaughter houses. People shouldn't breed their horses just because they can. Even with responsible breeding, issues come up. Add in irresponsible owners and you get real problems. I have seen some horrible deformities in fillies and colts at the auctions. Those poor creatures should have been put down right after birth, but the owners kept them, raised them up and sold them for a few dollars to kill buyers. I have never met a horse lover who isn't sickened by the sight of a starving horse, but they are also in support of responsible and humane slaughter here in the U.S. Did those PETA freaks think about how those horses are trucked to Mexico and how they're killed by being stabbed to death? Yeah, it's WAY more inhumane to put a bolt to the brain and cause death instantly....they really make me angry. I gotta go clean something


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

Lazydaisy67 said:


> If you really want to make an impact, have horse owners apply for a permit or license to breed their animals.


Unfortunately, they haven't been able to do this with the dog and cat breeders and that is a much greater problem.

In addition, since horses are livestock, once you get into the 'apply for a permit or license' with horses, then you are opening the doors for the same kind of legislation potential for all livestock breeders ... cattle, sheep, goats, pigs ... and farmers and ranchers are already being swamped by regulations passed by (as you say) people that don't have a clue what it takes to produce livestock. You impact family businesses that have been in production for generations with laws passed by people who don't have the knowledge to regulate and then inspections to enforce those laws which are done by more people who don't have a clue.

Any kind of permit/licensing of livestock breeding for ANY class of livestock can only lead to incredible problems. If you think the problems now, with the closing of the slaughter plants in the U.S. for horses, is bad ... you don't even want to think about the potential for disaster if you open the doors for something like breeding regulations for any livestock species.


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

Lazydaisy67 said:


> If you really want to make an impact, have horse owners apply for a permit or license to breed their animals. More of the problems they're angry and sickened about occur because of irresponsible breeding than with inhumane slaughter houses. People shouldn't breed their horses just because they can. Even with responsible breeding, issues come up. Add in irresponsible owners and you get real problems. I have seen some horrible deformities in fillies and colts at the auctions. Those poor creatures should have been put down right after birth, but the owners kept them, raised them up and sold them for a few dollars to kill buyers.


Licensing would make an impact.... for the worse. Inviting the government into our lives never makes things easier. People don't register dogs and cats. Because they don't they rarely take those pets to the vet. After all, if they do the vet will report the animal to the county. If licensing is required, I'd bet fewer horses will visit the vet for regular care and for acute care.


----------



## birdman1 (Oct 3, 2011)

I was glad that the horse slaughter option was opened up to the people again It is much better for the horse and horse owners .If someone needs another vote or signature to keep this option open count me in ,America does not need more regulation that is part of these problems, more permits or licence fees placed on the already over burdened farmer is rediculis .please keep the buricrats out of our problems we have taken care of ourselfs and our livestock for hundreds of years and tend to do a good job of it .The live stock breeder and farmer as a whole know what they are doing .


----------



## vaponydoc (Apr 7, 2003)

It all boils down to people taking responsibility for their animals. Horse slaughter is a way for people to dump their problems and the result is tremendous suffering during transport and holding. There will always be unwanted horses and the current problems are due much more to the poor economy and crazy drought conditions in many places than to the ban on horse slaughter in the U.S. 

If an alternative home cannot be found for horses who are old, infirm, or no longer wanted, they should be humanely euthanized and not subjected to the horror of a slaughterhouse. Gunshot is considered a conditionally acceptable form of euthanasia according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. It can be humane but is not without risk. It is admittedly expensive to have a vet out to administer drugs to euthanize a horse. Ideally vets place an intravenous catheter and heavily sedate the horse first. That should make it a smooth and pain free experience for the horse. The only time I have had a horse not pass quickly from euthanasia drugs has been when they are systemically ill and have bad circulation. No reason for it to not go well if adequate drugs are given.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Since you can't regulate morality, Doc I'd rather have slaughter than have horses dying of starvation and neglect.

There *are* regulations in place for the humane shipment to slaughter in many States and slaughter houses in the US and Canada *were/are* very heavily regulated.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

vaponydoc said:


> There will always be unwanted horses and the current problems are due much more to the poor economy and crazy drought conditions in many places than to the ban on horse slaughter in the U.S.


The slaughter ban predated both the poor economy and the drought conditions. There was a major problem with unwanted horses beginning shortly after the slaughter ban, before the economy tanked and well before the drought hit so hard in such a broad area. The poor economy and the drought just intensified the issue.


----------



## Lazydaisy67 (Jan 28, 2008)

ok, the permit idea was not a good idea, I agree. I don't want that to happen any more than anybody else. My blood pressure just goes up about 10 points when I even think about the PETA people trying to "Save" the horses from slaughter.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

Lazydaisy67 said:


> My blood pressure just goes up about 10 points when I even think about the PETA people trying to "Save" the horses from slaughter.


Oh, yeah, PETA is definitely considered a four-letter word in our house.

I have serious issues with a lot of rescues for a variety of reasons and I also have issues (because of my working ranch as a business/sole support of our family background) of trying to 'save' animals with really extensive surgery/ vet care ... and soliciting for $$ to do this. Animals that do not have a reasonable chance of survival and if they survive are unlikely to be anything but a 'pasture pet' and very apt to have ongoing expensive health issues.

It just doesn't make sense to me because of my background. I grew up where decisions had to be made on the basis of practicality ... you don't spend $$ on an animal that can't support itself and help support you. If you do otherwise, you end up going bankrupt and losing the ranch (your business).


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

People who raise animals for pets or pleasure, many times, have a completely different outlook than those who raise animals for a business.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SFM in KY said:


> The slaughter ban predated both the poor economy and the drought conditions. There was a major problem with unwanted horses beginning shortly after the slaughter ban, before the economy tanked and well before the drought hit so hard in such a broad area. The poor economy and the drought just intensified the issue.


I don't buy the _just_ economy and drought thinking (both did contribute to the problem) either, I was a teen in the '70s recession and didn't see nearly the problem with neglect and starvation as there is now because there was still the option to sell the horse to slaughter if you couldn't afford to keep it.


----------



## saanengirl (Apr 7, 2009)

Right now goats bring more than horses at auction. Why? Goats have intrinsic value based on their value for food. Since horses are not considered food animals in this country, and the only slaughter options require extensive travel, they have little or no intrinsic value.


----------



## spinandslide (Jun 6, 2008)

^^^All livestock is worth more then horses right now. Even the upper tier of horses..my disapline is reining and cowhorse..have seen prices drop much lower then they used to be..the whole industry is seeing this..the "shock value" of $30 horses are the lower end ones..but the upper tier sees it too..make no doubt..


----------



## tropit (Feb 6, 2012)

Personally, I am saddened to see horse slaughter made legal in this country. Over my lifetime, I have worked as a vet assistant, been a horse handler on large throughbred farms and a later, TB rescuer. With all due respect, I do not live in a 700 sq ft apartment. I live on a large ranch with an assortment of animals, including rescued horses. Therefore, if I may humbly say so, I think that I have a practical and pragmatic view of this issue. 

From my experiences, the large horse farms today are not what they were long ago. No longer do a majority of retired racehorses and high stakes show horses live out their days in 100 acre irrigated pastures by day and warm cozy stalls at night. In California, many of them are sent to low-end auctions, and then on to either slaughterhouses in Texas (illegal, or not,) or off to premarin farms in Canada, (a worser fate.) Only a few are sent back to the farm, or sold to be retrained as jumpers, or 3-day horses. 

The breeders' argument for this practice is that it isn't cost effective to keep the animals any longer. However, these very horses were sometimes bought at auction for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Trust me, these are not, "poor folk just trying to hang on to the family farm."

If horse slaughter is made legal, then it only allows these, "horse enthusiasts," to make even more money through the further exploitation of horses. I'm not talking about the mom and pop operations, or hobby horse people here. Some of these, "glamorous farms," that I'm referring to, are no better than puppy mills for ponies and have literally thousands of horses on their premises at one time. I know, I've worked for them.

I realize that, "regulation," is a dirty word and I don't like it much myself. However, I feel that it may be necessary to limit their breeding practices if they can't, or won't continue to care for these animals in a humane way, during or after they have used them for their profits.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

tropit said:


> I realize that, "regulation," is a dirty word and I don't like it much myself. However, I feel that it may be necessary to limit their breeding practices if they can't, or won't continue to care for these animals in a humane way, during or after they have used them for their profits.


I don't disagree that there are some wealthy TB breeders that take advantage of the slaughter horse market, but I do not believe that they are producing a significantly high percentage of all the horses would go through the auction rings destined for slaughter plants. That was not the case prior to the closing of the slaughter plants, perhaps in some specific areas but certainly not nationwide.

I lived in MT for years and often went to the big monthly horse sale held in Billings, where you might see 200 or more horses go through on sale day. For about 10 years, I was actively looking for TB broodmares to buy and if I was lucky, there might be 3 or 4 going through. TBs never made up more than 10% of the total number of horses being sold. 

Instituting government regulations on horse breeding would be opening a Pandora's Box of problems.

First, it is going to have to cover *all* horse breeding, you cannot select out "the rich TB breeders producing more than "X" number of foals per year" for regulation. Every horse breeder will have to be covered under the regulations. This will have an impact on the smaller breeder and the breeder of all of the other breeds of horses and ponies that are not involved in the racing industry.

Second, since horses are livestock, it will allow the PETA type people to get a foot in the door to expand their efforts into the livestock industries in addition to the pet-specific areas. They have been trying to get into livestock production fields in a number of ways, this would be a step up for them and would make it even more difficult for the farm and ranch operators to continue in business.

There are abuses to the system as it exists, I don't deny that. However, I am convinced more government regulations can only make the problems worse.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

tropit said:


> Personally, I am saddened to see horse slaughter made legal in this country. Over my lifetime, I have worked as a vet assistant, been a horse handler on large throughbred farms and a later, TB rescuer. With all due respect, I do not live in a 700 sq ft apartment. I live on a large ranch with an assortment of animals, including rescued horses. Therefore, if I may humbly say so, I think that I have a practical and pragmatic view of this issue.
> 
> From my experiences, the large horse farms today are not what they were long ago. No longer do a majority of retired racehorses and high stakes show horses live out their days in 100 acre irrigated pastures by day and warm cozy stalls at night. In California, many of them are sent to low-end auctions, and then on to either slaughterhouses in Texas (illegal, or not,) or off to premarin farms in Canada, (a worser fate.) Only a few are sent back to the farm, or sold to be retrained as jumpers, or 3-day horses.
> 
> ...


Horses are livestock. Do you feel the same way about cows, pigs, sheep and goats? If not, why? Race horses are a business and businesses can only exist if they make money.

I don't think that Premarin farms have been much of an issue since around 2004, there are a few left in operation in both the US and Canada now. Even prior to 2004 all were heavily regulated and not the hell holes that animal activists made them out to be.

What should be done with unwanted horses?


----------



## DamnearaFarm (Sep 27, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Horses are livestock. Do you feel the same way about cows, pigs, sheep and goats? If not, why? Race horses are a business and businesses can only exist if they make money.
> 
> *I don't think that Premarin farms have been much of an issue since around 2004, there are a few left in operation in both the US and Canada now. Even prior to 2004 all were heavily regulated and not the hell holes that animal activists made them out to be.*
> 
> What should be done with unwanted horses?


Not to mention, most premarin farms I know of prefer to use draft mares. Bigger horse= larger amount of urine.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

That's true, RRR. I know that they crossed the drafts with TB stallions sometimes, but you're right the primary mares used are/were drafts.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

NAERIC changed the way PMU's operated but quite honestly, I don't think there are more than a small handful of barns up in Canada.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

wr said:


> NAERIC changed the way PMU's operated but quite honestly, I don't think there are more than a small handful of barns up in Canada.


Last time I checked a couple of years back that the number is down between 20k And 25K, as they're are some people that can not use the synthetic. So Permarin is still in use for those.


----------



## tropit (Feb 6, 2012)

SFM in KY said:


> I lived in MT for years and often went to the big monthly horse sale held in Billings, where you might see 200 or more horses go through on sale day. For about 10 years, I was actively looking for TB broodmares to buy and if I was lucky, there might be 3 or 4 going through. TBs never made up more than 10% of the total number of horses being sold.


I hear you and I think that you make some valid points. I appreciate that. I just don't know if you realize how big the horse industry is in CA. ( I may be mistaken, but I believe that CA has the largest horse industry in the US.) It's huge and it's not just the TB racing industry I'm referring to. That's just the segment that I'm most familiar with. 

I do agree...there are too many horses these days that are not put to enough good uses, or have able owners to take care of them. My feeling is that if someone can no longer care for their horse, then it should go to another, better home, or be humanely destroyed.

~ C.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

tropit said:


> I just don't know if you realize how big the horse industry is in CA. ( I may be mistaken, but I believe that CA has the largest horse industry in the US.) It's huge and it's not just the TB racing industry I'm referring to. That's just the segment that I'm most familiar with.
> 
> My feeling is that if someone can no longer care for their horse, then it should go to another, better home, or be humanely destroyed.~ C.


As to the TB racing industry, I now live in KY so am relatively familiar with that as well as the ranch horses and QH industry I grew up with. In fact, I believe that the horse industry brings in the most agricultural money to the state now that tobacco is no longer a big business.

My attitude is, of course, shaped by my background, which is understandable and I'm sure yours is as well. I view horses as livestock, so I did not grow up thinking that a horse should be euthanized rather than taken to an auction and sold. That is what you did with livestock you raised ... you sold them at auction. Cattle breeders took some of their best to sales where they were selling breeding stock, but if there weren't buyers for all of them, they were sold anyway and went to feedlots. The same thing was true of horses, if there were not buyers willing to pay somewhat higher prices for them as breeding stock or performance prospects, the were bought by the slaughter buyers. There were no unwanted horses turned out to starve to death.

I don't have answers, but it is obvious that the ban on U.S. horse slaughter did not do what the people pushing the ban claimed that it would. In fact, for those of us who are actually in the horse industry/business rather than hobby horse owners, it is obvious that it caused more problems, not fewer.

Your belief that if someone can no longer care for their horse, then it should go to another, better home, or be humanely destroyed is certainly a best case scenario. But what do you do when there are no more homes available and the owners are in an area where it may cost up to $400 to euthanize and dispose of one horse when they are out of work, have no assets and trying to feed their children? If you have legislation that mandates these things and they have no other options, what do you suggest they do?

Again, in my 'world' what you suggest ... re-homing or euthanizing ... is what farm and ranch people see as solutions when they have pets that they can no longer keep. They have a totally different attitude toward livestock and I don't disagree with that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> Last time I checked a couple of years back that the number is down between 20k And 25K, as they're are some people that can not use the synthetic. So Permarin is still in use for those.


There are approximately 2000 broodmares according to NAERIC. Here's a link: http://www.naeric.org/about.asp?strNav=4


----------



## wolffeathers (Dec 20, 2010)

I think chemically euthanizing and dumping that many horses in the landfills is a waste.

I personally believe that we should have US inspected and regulated slaughter houses. A trip to a local slaughter house and a captive bolt to the head and then their meat is utilized and not left to rot in a landfill. Some of the meat is sold for human consumption and some of it goes to feeding animals. If people have a horse that they don't want to send to slaughter, nobody is forcing them. This is simply a useful outlet for the thousands of unwanted horses; the alternative is using taxpayer money to euthanize and dump those thousands of horses in a landfill. 

Neither is a very pretty or romantic resting place, but in one the meat is used and the other it's become chemically toxic and left to rot. It's just how I view it. I kind of like to look at it from the perspective of organ donation, I'm both an organ and tissue donar. When I die, I have no use for it; if it can provide for another, by all means take it. I would much rather my body be used to save or sustain another than put in the ground to rot. 

I would rather my unwanted livestock eaten and used; than wasted.


----------



## akane (Jul 19, 2011)

> It all boils down to people taking responsibility for their animals. Horse slaughter is a way for people to dump their problems and the result is tremendous suffering during transport and holding.


Actually quite a few people here raised horses specifically for meat. Throw any old stallion out with a bunch of midsized mares and every year haul the offspring and any old or lame mares to the auction for the kill buyers. The auction ran those horses through at the beginning to get them out of the way since many were a bit insane and none had been handled. The end of horse slaughter still had 2 or 3 generations of these horses before all the breeding stopped and the offspring found homes. Usually with people who didn't know a thing about a horse. While the breeders, who like I said were sometimes insane, were mostly shot.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

akane said:


> Actually quite a few people here raised horses specifically for meat. Throw any old stallion out with a bunch of midsized mares and every year haul the offspring and any old or lame mares to the auction for the kill buyers.


Where are you located? I lived for years and went to a number of auctions in MT, WY, CO and the Dakotas and actually never saw this. Knew a lot of the horse breeders in those states, didn't know any of them that ever bred horses specifically for slaughter. I did know a number of ranchers that had a stallion out with a band of broodmares and they weren't handled, so certainly weren't hands-on manageable. However, they brought in the young horses as 2 or 3 year olds and started them under saddle.

I can't imagine horses being raised for slaughter bringing in a better income than running cattle on the same land. When I was living there and going to sales regularly, good beef calves would bring $400 per head just weaned off the cows. It took a 1000# horse in good condition to bring $400 and for a horse to get to that weight, they would have to be 3 or 4 years old and a pretty good sized animal. It just doesn't make good economic sense to run horses strictly for meat rather than cattle unless there are conditions wherever this was that I'm not familiar with.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

SFM in KY said:


> I don't have answers, but it is obvious that the ban on U.S. horse slaughter did not do what the people pushing the ban claimed that it would. In fact, for those of us who are actually in the horse industry/business rather than hobby horse owners, it is obvious that it caused more problems, not fewer.
> 
> Your belief that if someone can no longer care for their horse, then it should go to another, better home, or be humanely destroyed is certainly a best case scenario. But what do you do when there are no more homes available and the owners are in an area where it *may cost up to $400 to euthanize and dispose of one horse* when they are out of work, have no assets and trying to feed their children? If you have legislation that mandates these things and they have no other options, what do you suggest they do?
> 
> Again, in my 'world' what you suggest ... re-homing or euthanizing ... is what farm and ranch people see as solutions when they have pets that they can no longer keep. They have a totally different attitude toward livestock and I don't disagree with that.


before the economy tanked, it cost my pop over $1000 to euth & dispose of one of his wife's pet horses.
one of the problems is the disney school of animal sciences. we need more ole yellers & less bambis.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

Pops2 said:


> before the economy tanked, it cost my pop over $1000 to euth & dispose of one of his wife's pet horses.


That's amazing ... but in a way, it doesn't surprise me. In a areas that are heavily urbanized, there are often not a lot of choices and you not only have the vet bill but significant costs for disposal, particularly in view of the euthanizing chemicals. There are some landfills that will not accept dead animals.

It wasn't a problem in MT, of course and in the county where I live in KY we're fortunate to have the option of a County large animal disposal service that will pick up farm animals and haul them to a landfill for disposal for just $25 per animal.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

tropit said:


> I hear you and I think that you make some valid points. I appreciate that. I just don't know if you realize how big the horse industry is in CA. ( I may be mistaken, but I believe that CA has the largest horse industry in the US.) It's huge and it's not just the TB racing industry I'm referring to. That's just the segment that I'm most familiar with.
> 
> I do agree...there are too many horses these days that are not put to enough good uses, or have able owners to take care of them. My feeling is that if someone can no longer care for their horse, then it should go to another, better home, or be humanely destroyed.
> 
> ~ C.


But see, here's where you're looking to regulate the entirely wrong market. 
A slaughterhouse SHOULD be a humane end. Even for the coldest, cruelest person in the world, it's just good economic sense. An unstressed animal has higher quality meat. A captive bolt, properly used, is a very humane end.
Push for regulations to make slaughter houses more humane. It's simple quality control.

The TB (and QH) industries are trying to make a long-lived animal into a short-term investment, to everyone's detriment. I love a good quarter horse, but I'll look for a grade that has the qualities I want long, long before I look at a papered animal - I want a horse I'm riding in it's teens and 20s, not something that needs hock injections at 5. The AQHA no longer gives the impression of having that animal, does it? Their market is already starting to suffer.
Push for banning competitions that have 2yos under saddle, races, futurities. 
Vote with your pocketbook - don't go to events that showcase such young horses. Spend your money at events that show the skills of mature animals. I would love to see high-stakes races that feature 6 yo TBs racing over distance - that would be a sport to follow, where endurance and skill mattered as much or more then raw speed. (Why I love sports like eventing)
When the money is gone, the market is gone. When the market is gone, the problem is gone. Only a stupid breeder breeds with no market and you're not going to stop those types no matter what.


----------



## Rogo (Jan 1, 2006)

When I was growing up, horse meat was sold in the grocery stores. I don't remember when it stopped being sold.

Many folks around the U.S. raise horses for meat on their tables, the same as pork, chicken, beef, etc. They do their own harvesting and most keep quiet about it!

I haven't tasted horse meat in years, but I'd eat it. I raise swine and poultry. Meat is meat. Those aren't harsh words; it's reality. Better than all the livestock I see daily that have been turned out to fend for themselves and will die of dehydration and starvation.

JMO.


----------



## southerngurl (May 11, 2003)

> I want a horse I'm riding in it's teens and 20s, not something that needs hock injections at 5.


Getting OT here but I had to say, I don't think it's the genetics of the quarter horses that cause the soundness issues, but rather the misuse, particularly the improper shoeing that speed event horses are often given. It seems people think more toe on the hinds makes them faster, not caring about the leverage it causes on the joints and muscles above. 

I know of plenty of older quarter horses who are sound, because they have had half way decent care and not had their bodies abused by poor shoeing (often expensive shoeing too) coupled with hard use. Even horses that ran speed events.

On the slaughter issue, suffice to say there is no reason you can say you can kill this animal but not that one with exception of human beings. Saying they shouldn't be slaughtered because the slaughter isn't humane is saying no animal should be slaughtered- and people who say this will eat hamburgers so their is a mismatch if you ask me. The horse doesn't know or care about what happens to it after it's dead.


----------



## akane (Jul 19, 2011)

Iowa. It was a monthly event at the Kalona sale barn but you don't see the wild ones as much now that there's no market to get rid of them. Everybody has a chunk of land here or there that can't grow anything, some of it is just woods or a former junk pile often still with half the junk, and it was quite common to throw some smaller breed horses on it and never handle them. They'd run them in to the trailers, beat them out of the trailers (even if they fell down they often kept beating them), and in to pens of about a dozen each for 4 or 5 pens every month. 90% went to the killers and the odd one per pen, usually weanlings, would sell a couple $100 to someone who wanted to try to train it. My grandma went for that kind of stuff when I was a kid. Bought the weanlings and yearlings then tried to train them but found most quite insane from poor breeding and never seeing a person until the traumatic event of being run in to the sale barn. The number of times we nearly got killed.... The farmers only went out there once a month 4months out of the year to put out round bales so the weanlings never saw a person at all and the yearlings only 4 times while on a tractor. 

Those horses were never brought in to be broken and were usually sold by yearlings. They'd get too difficult and destructive by 2 year olds to run through gated pens and in to the trailers. Sometimes someone else with better equipment would raise them up to 2 or 3 year olds and return to the sale barn with them without having done anymore handling on them.

After the first 2 years of no slaughter plants those horses disappeared from the sale barn but then the broodmares who had never been ridden started going through as everyone sold their breeding stock. Some had several dozen to 100 head on a website or going through the sale barn one load at a time each month. Some are still sitting on them. 

Now we are down to the stuff people "rescued" that would have gone to the killers but then had no idea what to do with it since they know nothing about horses so they send it back through auction. A year or 2 older and having learned nothing except bad habits.

That makes up a morning at the Kalona sale barn. I suggest you go in the afternoon if you want something that won't try to kill you. Those are the ones actually led or ridden through the ring. I spend the morning at the tack auction section instead of watching the abuse they give some of those animals.


----------



## CornerstoneAcre (Mar 10, 2011)

wolffeathers said:


> I think chemically euthanizing and dumping that many horses in the landfills is a waste.
> 
> I personally believe that we should have US inspected and regulated slaughter houses. A trip to a local slaughter house and a captive bolt to the head and then their meat is utilized and not left to rot in a landfill. Some of the meat is sold for human consumption and some of it goes to feeding animals. If people have a horse that they don't want to send to slaughter, nobody is forcing them. This is simply a useful outlet for the thousands of unwanted horses; the alternative is using taxpayer money to euthanize and dump those thousands of horses in a landfill.
> 
> ...


Not a very "popular" view - but I for one agree 100%!!

My goats are my pets and some of the best "pets" I've ever had. Sweet, loving, friendly, very family oriented (mother's and daughters seem to share a life long bond as well as subsequent generations) and just plain cute. However, goat meat is some of the best I've ever eaten. Horses are taboo when it comes to being on the menu, IMO only because they are considered pets, entertainment, etc. (anything BUT livestock). I can't think of any other livestock that isn't eaten in the United States....(I'm sure I missing something though)


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

southerngurl said:


> Getting OT here but I had to say, I don't think it's the genetics of the quarter horses that cause the soundness issues, but rather the misuse, .
> Saying they shouldn't be slaughtered because the slaughter isn't humane is saying no animal should be slaughtered- and people who say this will eat hamburgers so their is a mismatch if you ask me. The horse doesn't know or care about what happens to it after it's dead.


If you don't breed for long-term soundness it becomes a less and less likely roll of the dice to get it. Nature only wants to reproduce, it doesn't care about the individual - that's up to good breeders.
Every horse I've ever known to die of nothing but old age before the age of 25 has been at least half (one parent a)registered QH. Misuse has a good bit to do with it, but it is unrealistic to say "Well, yeah, for generations you can breed an animal for nothing more then a showing hard for a year before it hits physical maturity. But there's no reason to think that has any effect on how well-using those bloodlines are when used for year after year after year..." - or even after they reach physical maturity.
When breeding goats, it's easy to get one that produces a lot of milk 1 month fresh - but how hard is it to have one producing like that 9 months fresh? If you only ever bred for that one month mark, would you expect to hit that 9 month high just because?

No one is opposed to humane slaughter, but you're right, if you're not opposed to inhumane slaughter there's something wrong with you. Big steps have been taken to make slaughter houses low stress for cattle (Temple Grandin) and to break it down to the only language that some people speak, it is more efficient and productive.

Horses are not cattle, different things stress them and they react differently. Make it as low-stress for horses as it is for cattle and very few people would object.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

Otter said:


> But see, here's where you're looking to regulate the entirely wrong market. A slaughterhouse SHOULD be a humane end. Even for the coldest, cruelest person in the world, it's just good economic sense. An unstressed animal has higher quality meat. A captive bolt, properly used, is a very humane end.
> Push for regulations to make slaughter houses more humane. It's simple quality control.
> .


In reality, laws have always been in place for both slaughter plants and transport regulations. What the problem has always been is that the laws are there but the funding for people to inspected and enforce the laws that already exist has not been provided. 

The government agencies responsible for inspections don't have the money to hire the number of people they need and in this economy they aren't going to get it.

And there's no way the animal-activist groups are going to get behind a drive to raise money to pay for inspectors to enforce these laws. There is absolutely no way they can make that as 'attractive' to donors as they can when asking for donations to 'save a horse from slaughter' when illustrated by a photo of a pathetic animal that is nothing but hide draped over a skeleton.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

When I was a kid the local auction ran through the "never been touched" horses first too. There were never huge amounts of them but there were some at every biweekly sale, they had to be herded through gated pathways into the sale ring and then back out again. At that time, there were 200 horses at a regular sale and 400+ at the spring and fall sales. I haven't been to that auction in years but I've heard 50 head is a big one and it's an easy haul to Canada.


----------



## spinandslide (Jun 6, 2008)

Otter said:


> But see, here's where you're looking to regulate the entirely wrong market.
> A slaughterhouse SHOULD be a humane end. Even for the coldest, cruelest person in the world, it's just good economic sense. An unstressed animal has higher quality meat. A captive bolt, properly used, is a very humane end.
> Push for regulations to make slaughter houses more humane. It's simple quality control.
> 
> ...


getting rid of young horse events will not cease folks starting their youngsters early..merely gives them more time to get them ready.

you CAN start a young horse CORRECTLY at 2 and have it stay sound well into it's teens and twenties..I own two such AQHA mares..the problem occurs..as with most things..when its done INCORRECTLY.

Even been afew studies on the potentially benefical effects of TB's starting to breeze at two years old..potentially building bone density and making them less apt to injury.


----------



## fordson major (Jul 12, 2003)

wr said:


> NAERIC changed the way PMU's operated but quite honestly, I don't think there are more than a small handful of barns up in Canada.



i have not heard of anyone doing pmu in our region for years and at that time it was drafts and they were not mistreated. we have a very active humane society and they have a lot of powers even the cops don't have!


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

spinandslide said:


> getting rid of young horse events will not cease folks starting their youngsters early..merely gives them more time to get them ready.


I don't care what age people start them, so long as they don't cripple them (and people have done that with animals of every age)- you kind of missed the my point.

What it stops is the throw-away mentality. If you have a TB, name me one high profile, high dollar race for animals more then 3.
Oh, that's right - there aren't any.
So explain to me the motivation to care for this animal for the _NEXT_ 25 years of it's life.
Oh, that's right, there isn't any. What happens is they get dumped in favor of the next rising star. 
Same with AQHA futurities. It's not _as_ bad, because events for older horses do exist. But all the money is in futurities - again creating a throw away market.
Both are the same. Hmm, I can make 100,000 with this 3 yo, but maybe 5,000 when he's 5 - do you keep him, or raise another foal and try for another 100 grand? It's obvious what most people choose.
Ask me how many TB's I've worked with that sold for tens to hundreds of thousands at the yearling sales that were sold for a few hundred or given away between the ages of 4 and 6. I'll need a pen and paper to work out the answer, it's that many over that many years.

Compare this to, say, 3 day eventing. You don't hear even ignorant people bashing people for breeding for that. There's no throw away market in it. You get fans, because they can root for this horse and rider team for years, you have people flocking to 20+ year old stallions and you have mares with long competitive lives instead of it being standard to show/race them till they have a few wins and then put them in a broodmare band the rest of their lives.

Change the sport, change where the money is and the breeding practices change automatically. No regulation of breeders necessary.


----------



## malinda (May 12, 2002)

Otter said:


> I don't care what age people start them, so long as they don't cripple them (and people have done that with animals of every age)- you kind of missed the my point.
> 
> What it stops is the throw-away mentality. If you have a TB, name me one high profile, high dollar race for animals more then 3.
> Oh, that's right - there aren't any.
> ...


I totally agree.

And ironically, 3 Day Eventing is a sport in which many OTTBs excel at, and can still be quite competitive into their late teens.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The Santa Anita Handicap is only for horses 4 and older and is both high profile and high dollar. I do understand what you're saying tho the career span for the average to above average racehorse is 3 years. I have one of those very high dollar OTTBs in my barn right now, she broke down after her third race as a 2 year old.


----------



## spinandslide (Jun 6, 2008)

Otter said:


> I don't care what age people start them, so long as they don't cripple them (and people have done that with animals of every age)- you kind of missed the my point.
> 
> What it stops is the throw-away mentality. If you have a TB, name me one high profile, high dollar race for animals more then 3.
> Oh, that's right - there aren't any.
> ...


Why don't you take a breath and calm down..obviously, we are very partial to 3 day eventing, yes?

Specialized breeding specificaly FOR event horses is still relatively a NEW thing..when I was eventing, very few people bred for event horses. Bruce D. had (and still does have) a great program, but even he had alot of horses "off the track"..in fact, he had said he actually likes a horse who had been raced or hunted on young..as they seemed to hold up to training better then a horse who "had been allowed to grow fat in a field"

Only recently have specific lines been distingushed as being relatively consistent in producing the type of horses that excel in eventing..and make no mistake..the lower levels are still filled with a smorgsbord of breeds.

Alot of those horses "given away" make stellar hunters, jumpers or event horses..those sports are filled with them..I rode my fair share of OTTB's that went on to become great mounts for new owners..there is an ACTIVE approach to "recycling" these OTTB's...

Now, what you neglected to mention (or mabey arent aware) is that alot of the horses, and in this I am talking stock horses in reining,cutting and cowhorse competitions..as that is what I personally know, will be futurited on..and many will continue in the Derbies (as 4,5 and 6 year olds) and even AFTER that, many will continue showing, usually for their non pro owners in rookie and weekend shows..there is money to be had and won.

and just because a horse does not continue to show as an "aged" horse doesnt mean they are unsound...it's apersonal choice of the owner.

When you start breeding "specialized" horses for specific purposes, you WILL have horses who do not "fit" the purpose..culls if you will..because breeding for event horses is, as I said, relatively new, its not an issue yet..you cannot fit round pegs into square holes, even if they have the best breeding in the world behind them...a GOOD breeder finds another "job" for a horse who can no longer do the job he did do or was suppossed to do...same goes for reining,racing, WHATEVER..

you cannot fix ignorant people..and lumping a whole sect of people (those racing people, or those QH people) into a group of people who throwaway their horses when they can longer do their job IS an ignorant statement...MANY breeders take personal responsibility for the horses they produce...many do not.

Let me add-I do agree there are people who do have a "win at all costs" attitude..but it is not an "entire" industry or breed or disapline that this attitude is exclusive too..it spans ALL activities, breeds and people.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

spinandslide - still missing my point.
Which is;
This thread got all the way to post# 7 before someone said "Regulate Breeders" - which is a pretty long run on most slaughter threads. It usually comes up sooner

I believe that regulating breeders is not only the WRONG answer, but one as deeply, horribly backwards and wrong as banning slaughter was in the first place.
Why do people jump right to regulating breeders?
Because it is easier to do that then point a finger at the way the industry as a whole can change.
Because it makes the devil into someone else instead of looking at ways we, ourselves can help eliminate the problem.

You seem to think I'm making an ignorant attack on the AQHA industry. I'm not. I'm pointing out some unpleasant facts that the PETA people can/will/have taken and run with. Part of why I picked the examples I did was because of PETA. Why does PETA get press out of "Race to Live" campaigns? Because of the grain of truth. Same with the rodeo cruelty and crippled cow-horse campaigns. 
I do like eventing - but the reason I picked it is because PETA tried to go after it - and failed.

I specifically mentioned that there are AQHA competitions for older horses. Be honest with me - is it the same money that can be made in the futurities? Is it a lot more work to make that money? We both know the answer. We both don't like the answer. But jumping all over me to point out (what I already know) that not EVERYONE goes for the quick, easy money - doesn't change the fact.

So, do we do what the immediate, public outcry is (Regulate the breeders!!! Ban Slaughter!!! Shut down racing!!!!) That's such an easy answer for people with no knowledge to shout for. It's so easy for politicians to push - _hey look, I'm the Good Guy who stopped all those bad, mean people from abusing and exploiting the noble, beautiful horse"_ Tell me how that's working out for us ... oh, right, horses being let starve to death, market in the toilet ... and endless horseperson-against-horseperson _not in MY venue_ finger pointing.

Maybe if we took a hard look at where the lay-person and PETA are pointing, we can snatch the rug out from under them before they get politicians to snatch the rug out from under us. 
For me, I'll vote with my money and place a bet on the Santa-Anita Handicap (good catch IP, I forgot about that one) and I attend cutting and reining shows every chance I get (good cutting horse = drool) - but you'll never, ever catch me at a futurity.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

We also got to a truly record breaking 11 posts before someone mentioned "the horrors of the slaughterhouse" and suffering in transport.
When SFM is perfectly right;



SFM in KY said:


> In reality, laws have always been in place for both slaughter plants and transport regulations. What the problem has always been is that the laws are there but the funding for people to inspected and enforce the laws that already exist has not been provided.
> 
> The government agencies responsible for inspections don't have the money to hire the number of people they need and in this economy they aren't going to get it.
> 
> And there's no way the animal-activist groups are going to get behind a drive to raise money to pay for inspectors to enforce these laws. There is absolutely no way they can make that as 'attractive' to donors as they can when asking for donations to 'save a horse from slaughter' when illustrated by a photo of a pathetic animal that is nothing but hide draped over a skeleton.


But I can promise you if the "solution" seems to be Regulate Breeders - money WILL be found for that! Seizing of property and fines will pay for a good bit of it. Go on to the rabbit forum and ask the rabbit breeders who find themselves under "pet" laws.

NO activist group is going to insist on money being available to pay for inspectors to enforce humane shipping and slaughter - WE need to do it. Responsible horse owners, trainers, breeders, professionals; we need to be the activists who make sure that this is done right.
No one else will do it for us -and PETA and other organizations are more then happy to regulate our horses right out from under us if we can't change things ourselves


----------



## spinandslide (Jun 6, 2008)

I understand more clearly now the point you were trying to make..I think sometimes in the heat of passionite posting, the message is lost..

I DO agree the horse industry needs to take a pro active approach to these issues.."heading them off at the pass"..but unfortunantly, IMO, there are some things that the horse community as a whole is still divided on..and because of that..we WILL loose..(slaughter, breeding, training methods,ect)

the horse industry is some of the brightest, but most close minded snooty people on the planet..that close mindedness will be the downfall of the industry..because it is that problem that gets in the way of all of us working TOGETHER..divide and conquer..and right now, the industry is divided on mutiple fronts.

I do not think regulating breeding is the answer..it is still fought tooth and nail within the dog community..and their overpopulation problem is worse then the horse overpopulation problem...

I do what I can..by educating and encouraging "new" people to join the industry.


----------



## tropit (Feb 6, 2012)

This has been a very interesting thread. There's been a lot of reasonable, though conflicting arguments on this subject.



Otter said:


> What it stops is the throw-away mentality. If you have a TB, name me one high profile, high dollar race for animals more then 3.
> Oh, that's right - there aren't any.


For me, I think your comment hits it on the head. It's not that I don't think horses should be humanely slaughtered, or destroyed. I just think that the horse industries have changed over the years, as the horses' usefulness has declined and the economy has worsened. I just don't want to see bad treatment of any animal rewarded with payment for the meat when the creature finally meets its fate. 

~ C.


----------



## Rogo (Jan 1, 2006)

Years ago, the vet put down one of my equines. $25 and he took care of the carcass.

I was recently told that to euth a horse here in Arizona now, the vets charge $250 - $400. You then have to call a company to haul away the carcass - $300 - $350.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Pops2 said:


> before the economy tanked, it cost my pop over $1000 to euth & dispose of one of his wife's pet horses.
> .


I was talking to an ARBA judge at the last show. She paid that much to put down and hire someone to bury a 30 years old. she said it was a shame that the meat couldn't have been used.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Otter, I feel the throw away mentality has become worse since the slaughter ban. 

Things have cooled off quite a bit but when horse prices tanked, we had a bunch of new members starting threads about sick or injured horses and so many of them seemed to have the mindset that it was okay if the horse died because they'd just get another free or next to nothing horse.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but the free horses are mostly over the age of 15, some of them over 20. Or else they are crippled. Or both crippled and over 20.

No amount of regulating breeders is going to stop horses from aging, nor stop injuries.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

wr said:


> Otter, I feel the throw away mentality has become worse since the slaughter ban.
> 
> Things have cooled off quite a bit but when horse prices tanked, we had a bunch of new members starting threads about sick or injured horses and so many of them seemed to have the mindset that it was okay if the horse died because they'd just get another free or next to nothing horse.


You are 100% right. I was referring to the industries that make a habit of it, but this has been a whole new can of worms.

What makes it even worse is a lot of those people have a dog-mentality towards them ... and foals are so cuuuute. So you get people breeding for that cute baby (couple of those next door, thought they'd quit once they got a palomino, nope, just took a year off and have a mare in with their stud because they were short on pen space) and you get people buying - or just getting, I had one offered to me today - these already half-spoiled youngsters for their kids to grow up with or because they always wanted a horse and training can't be THAT hard :smack

So now there's a pretty big free-cheap (like my $50 mare) market of young horses who are either not trained at all, really poorly trained, or out and out spoiled into being dangerous by mishandling. It's a downright shame, and now all that some of those youngsters are good for is dog-meat. 
I'm sure that when slaughter opens back up, the PETA types will be all up in arms over all the young, healthy horses going - I've been charged or kicked at (one caught me in the chest once) by youngsters made psycho by mishandling too often to get upset at them going for slaughter - though broken-hearted at the mindset that made them useless for anything else.


----------



## Rogo (Jan 1, 2006)

Article in February issue of Bridle and Bit Magazine: Following the passage of the 2012 Agricultural Appropriations bill, the ASPCA is urging support for a permanent ban on horse slaughter and prohibiting the transport of horses across U.S. borders for slaughter in other countries. American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (HR 2966/S 1176)

www.bridleandbit.com or pick up a copy at your feed store. Page 80.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Here's the Issue Brief from AVMA: http://www.avma.org/advocacy/federa...6_American-Horse-Slaughter-Prevention-Act.asp

The summary of the bill reads like this:

_Prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption. 
Give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to detain for examination, testing, or taking of evidence, any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale that the Secretary *has probable cause to believe is sore*, or believed to be in violation of (1). Raise the authorization of appropriations from $500,000 to $5,000,000. _

Read the bolded part again, yes it says that a horse can be seized at a public venue if it is sore. No definition of sore, just sore. 

It's unlikely that this is going to be made into law but this one is just nuts.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Rogo said:


> Article in February issue of Bridle and Bit Magazine: Following the passage of the 2012 Agricultural Appropriations bill, the ASPCA is urging support for a permanent ban on horse slaughter and prohibiting the transport of horses across U.S. borders for slaughter in other countries. American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (HR 2966/S 1176)
> 
> www.bridleandbit.com or pick up a copy at your feed store. Page 80.


Another good reason for NOT supporting the aspca.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> Another good reason for NOT supporting the aspca.


Actually, the ASPCA is NOT an AR group, but simply an animal welfare organization. HSUS is AR, as is PETA and they are the type of groups that go nuts and push poor legislation.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

GrannyCarol said:


> Actually, the ASPCA is NOT an AR group, but simply an animal welfare organization. HSUS is AR, as is PETA and they are the type of groups that go nuts and push poor legislation.


They are when they are supporting such a insane bill.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

Sorry, I went to look, but didn't see where they were supporting it, I'll check back later when I have more time!


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

ASPCA is normally not animal rights. However, whatever you send to them does not get to any local shelters.

If you want to help any of the animals in shelters, donate directly to your local shelter.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

we don't eat horses in this country so they are not truly livestock in that sense, and as they are not used for transportation much in this country they are simply owned and bred for human entertainment, so society choses to have and breed these animals, and in my opinion, has a unique responsibilty for their well being and the quality of their life and death....we don't have to have horses in most places, we want to have horses...so there is a distinct difference between them and cattle for sure. Having owned pet cattle, they also get the short stick as we arrogantly classify them to suit our needs as well, but at least they are not bred and raised for our entertainment then when the cease to be entertaining or become costly, we want to ship them off and make a few bucks. We fuss and worry endlessly about the "wanted horses", reduce stress, put up safe fence, give them companions, watch what we feed them, wrap their legs and cover their heads when we load them in trailers. Yet we are fine with unwanted horses being terrified and loaded shoulder to shoulder in large cattle trailers, put in paddocks with strange horses in strange places - it is not the end that is so troubling, it is means to the end. Is starvation and neglect better? No, but I am not sure slaughter houses are the answer; I am for euthinasia and disposal I think....that will be the fate of any horse that shares my life for my entertainment...it is the least I owe them..just my opinion...


----------



## DamnearaFarm (Sep 27, 2007)

Not true. Horses ARE eaten in this country, but it's kept quiet for obvious reasons.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

farmgirl6 said:


> they are not used for transportation much in this country they are simply owned and bred for human entertainment, so society choses to have and breed these animals, .


That may be true in many parts of the country but in the western states like MT where I grew up horses are a necessary part of the ranching business. They are not entertainment, they are a requirement for the raising and management of cattle and sheep on the big ranches of the west. Pickups, ATVs and tractors have taken over a lot of the jobs previously handled with horses, but certainly not all of them. 

None of the cattle ranchers I know personally could operate their ranch without horses.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

farmgirl6 said:


> I am for euthinasia and disposal I think....that will be the fate of any horse that shares my life for my entertainment...it is the least I owe them..just my opinion...


You are entitled to your opinion, you sound like a compassionate person, and I'm sure your horses get good care.

As has been mentioned, euthanasia and disposal can be very, very expensive.
As has also been mentioned, some horses don't respond well to chemical euthanasia, to the point the that many vets will recommend a bullet.

Now, an injection might be an easier mental picture for you, but if it's hard and painful on your old horse - who are we thinking of, ourselves, or the animal.

I guess this is heavy on my mind, because in the fall, I bought 2 horses, one well over 20. In spite of special feed, worming and tooth floating, she's had a hard time over this very mild winter, and if there's nothing I can tweak to get her fat by next fall, I won't put her through another one. We love her too much.
My vet has a revolver, that will probably be easier then my rifle.
I hope the day is a long time coming, but I sure won't risk her having a bad reaction to the meds just to spare myself.
I also won't spend hundreds of dollars that I could spend on my live horse to dispose of her body in a sentimental way. She'll not be in it, and won't care (similarly, I want my own organs donated and/or my body used for science) If there was a zoo or something around here, I'd donate her, since there's not, what's left may end up dog meat.

In the meantime, I'm off the drive an hour to pick up nutritional supplements for her, and Bermuda seed for my pasture and the hay patch we're putting in so I can be sure of getting the best possible hay for her (I can't grow enough for everyone, but I should be able to grow enough for just her)

It's not what you do with the remains after they're gone that says you love something, it's what you do when they're alive.
And if there was a place I could go, like the little place our friend uses for goats, where you drive up, someone leads them gently off the trailer and just inside and as quick as that - it's done (no crowds, no holding pens, no scary sights or smells) I'd use it.
The "knacker" was a familiar and well-respected institution on England for centuries, I don't know anyone who won't use some clean, small, well-run local place for all their stock, given the choice. A good friend of mine ran one, and took pride in being certified humane, have you ever actually been to one? You might be surprised. 
But places like that for horses won't exist unless we re-open the market and enforce the regulations already in place. 

I actually wish I could have someone as kind and competent as Mike for the old girl when her time comes. I'd not worry about it so much then.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

RamblinRoseRanc said:


> Not true. Horses ARE eaten in this country, but it's kept quiet for obvious reasons.


 Sure we do.
Not too many years ago. Some of the finest restaurants in NYC had horse meat on the menu. So we sure do eat horse meat IF it is available that is.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

I do not take issue with the use of a pistol for humane dispatching of an old or suffering animal, I also personally dont think the use of horses on a working ranch classifies them as livestock anymore than working farm dogs are livestock. And while there may be a portion of the america. Public who eat horses I would. Venture a guess it is a very small percentage of the population, rather like the percentage who eat dogs but surely no one here is prepared to argue the vast majority of horses in this country are not raised for sport or hobby?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The horse rescues are overwhelmed _now_ because of the slaughter ban and economy, can you imagine if horses were given pet status? How much a year are you willing to pay to support unwanted horses? It's not like supporting a dog or cat at a rescue, horses are expensive. IMO, there would still be people who couldn't afford to care for them and would still be horses dying of starvation and neglect the only difference is that they would be classified as pets. What _good_ would it do?

Horses are livestock, the same as cows, pigs, sheep, and goats, the fact that many people keep them as pets doesn't negate their livestock status. Regulating horses to pet status and the accompanying licenses, fees, and requirements would be a death blow to most/all small breeders nevermind that we absolutely don't need additional government interference in our lives.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

farmgirl6 said:


> surely no one here is prepared to argue the vast majority of horses in this country are *not *raised for sport or hobby?


Is this what you meant to say? I'm not sure of the percentages but I suspect the majority of horses today are, in fact, raised for the sport events from rodeo to hunters and driving ... or for the hobby buyers. There is a fairly large working ranch horse market in some states, but not all ... certainly nothing like the numbers that were common 50 years ago.

I think this is one of those subjects where there are people at both ends of the question that will never agree.

I could not ever consider a horse a pet. I was raised to consider horses working animals and livestock, to be as well cared for as all of the other livestock that supported our ranch and paid our bills, but definitely not a pet.

I know there are others who have never owned a horse that they did not consider a pet and while I do not understand this mindset, I respect it ... as long as that mindset does not dictate how I am required to keep my horses.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

As I said, I can not imagine anyone who is going to claim that the vast majority of horses in the good old USA are not raised for sport or hobby; I don't think it is much of a stretch to say the overwhelming majority in this country are NOT bred for either working on a ranch or eating - they are bred for hobby, sport or entertainment value. What other livestock do you know that you can claim that to be a true statement? I have a pet cow, chickens and goats, but my guess is I am in the minority...

My point being, we don't NEED anywhere near the horses we breed and raise in this country in the truest sense of the word; we CHOOSE to breed and raise horses for pleasure in the country in the vast majority of cases, carelessly, stupidily in many cases (can't imagine the fate of the mystery foal/mule due on my place from a grade mare I got in a trade if she did not land with me) and in my opinion, that being the case, we have perhaps a bit of a moral obligation to put some thought into the quality of their inevitable fate. And it is my opinion, and my opinion only of course, that some horse owners might be guilty of a bit of situational hypocracy when it comes to this issue; i.e. would have harsh words and be quick to lambast a horseowner, dare I even say accuse of neglect and abuse, who failed to stick to a strict regiment of vaccinations, worming, teeth floating and hoof triming, safe fencing and housing, safe trailering and properly fitting tack, but when it comes to our unwanted horses to slaughter houses will defend the practice as necessary, suddenly crowding them in trailers like cattle, shuttling them off to strange holding areas to arrive with numerous injuries, panicked and frightened, and processing them is just fine, after all, they are just livestock in full disclosure, have only been to one stockyard that handled horses, and it was rather horrible I must admit, perhaps there are better run facilities. And in the ultimate irony, came across a horse that had belonged to a fellow boarder at a stable I once kept my horses at, one I had helped work through some training issues with, owned by one of those folks who made it their business to make sure we were all taking good care of our horses and quick to point out any perceived shortcomings. And yet here I find this fine little black mare, unmistakeable because of her unique and unusual build and color, groomed coat and legs scuffed and skinned, gash over one eye, backed into a corner, bewildered and afraid. had no trailer, broke my heart when she seemed to recognize me, perhaps thought I had come to get her...

We certainly have a horse problem in this country, I am just not convinced packing up those we have no use and shunting them off to be processed with little regard to the conditions of practice is a fair solution. But with my experience, perhaps my view is skewed. My animals deserve better, and will get better...not talking necessarily rescue, talking a bullet/vet visit.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I respect your opinion, I even agree with some of it, but what do you suggest we _*do*_ to decrease the amount of horses going to slaughter? The ban only made neglect cases increase, which is worse slaughter or neglect? If you want regulations on breeding- who decides what can be bred? It's easy to rant, isn't it? Much harder to actually figure out a plan to make it happen... In my opinion slaughter is the only option that has actually worked and as it stands right now horses are livestock.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmgirl6, how do you feel breeding could be controlled? It seems to me that a lot of good quality breeders have already cut back because of horse prices and the less reputable breeders just keep going.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There was a thriving business in horse by-products many years ago. Dog food took a lot of horse meat. There were tallow works and bone meal- and yes- far enough back, glue.
I think it is a whole lot safer to use horse meat in things like dog food as horses are not intensively farmed. Cattle, pigs, chicken are and are the source of disease spread when they are crowded and antibioticed for growth.
And again, it costs $1000 to put a horse down for most people here. The vet charges about $500 and the person who carts off the carcass charges at least that. 
So guess what happens to those horse who need to be put down but whose owners might have already spent all they had in treatment.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

farmgirl6 said:


> *with little regard to the conditions of practice is a fair solution*. But with my experience, perhaps my view is skewed. My animals deserve better, and will get better...not talking necessarily rescue, talking a bullet/vet visit.


I understand that had to be a really heartbreaking experience for you, and it sounds like a really crappy place.

But the problem is in poorly run places like that, not the practice itself.
You do know that there are regulations for humane transport and handling - what we need to push for is the strictest compliance to those regulations.

That's what I, personally, am pushing for. I DO want proper care for horses (and all animals) and that includes enforcing the regulations about proper trailers, proper loading and unloading procedure, etc. And even more, encouraging facilities to become "Certified Humane" and then using only those places both to buy meat from and bring our own livestock to, should we raise it.
http://spiritofhumane.com/background
http://www.certifiedhumane.org/

Currently, I don't raise much livestock for sale, and those I do sell are to people who can come and see if they want to buy from me, if I get bigger then that, I'll get certified.
And if there was a certified humane place where they slaughtered horses, one I could see, like my friend's place for other livestock, I'd sleep easier knowing I could bring my horses there when it was time.

Like SFM, I've seen a couple of botched jobs, with a needle and with a bullet (ended up being several bullets, for poor old Prince) 
_Of course_ I'd like it if my horses would oblige me and, when their time comes, lie down for a nap one late summer day and forget to wake up. As that's unlikely, it would ease my mind considerably if I could have a professional do it. Right now, that's not possible.
And yes, I do mean someone with more experience then my vet. Ask your vet how many horses they put down last month. Probably few to none. Think about that.

I consider myself a responsible owner. Does the above thinking make me a hypocrite?


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

farmgirl6 said:


> we don't eat horses in this country so they are not truly livestock in that sense, and as they are not used for transportation much in this country they are simply owned and bred for human entertainment, so society choses to have and breed these animals, and in my opinion, has a unique responsibilty for their well being and the quality of their life and death....we don't have to have horses in most places, we want to have horses...so there is a distinct difference between them and cattle for sure. Having owned pet cattle, they also get the short stick as we arrogantly classify them to suit our needs as well, but at least they are not bred and raised for our entertainment then when the cease to be entertaining or become costly, we want to ship them off and make a few bucks. We fuss and worry endlessly about the "wanted horses", reduce stress, put up safe fence, give them companions, watch what we feed them, wrap their legs and cover their heads when we load them in trailers. Yet we are fine with unwanted horses being terrified and loaded shoulder to shoulder in large cattle trailers, put in paddocks with strange horses in strange places - it is not the end that is so troubling, it is means to the end. Is starvation and neglect better? No, but I am not sure slaughter houses are the answer; I am for euthinasia and disposal I think....that will be the fate of any horse that shares my life for my entertainment...it is the least I owe them..just my opinion...


We may not eat them but what about zoo animals and pet food?


----------



## Farmer2B (Oct 20, 2011)

Breeding licenses. For stallions to stand at stud they must have approval from a registry or government agent if they are not purebred.

It'd reduce the number of horses and we would stop having horses whose necks go straight up and backs go straight down to their withers.

One problem is if we trust the Government and regestries, and the money it would take to hire this people. I suppose that the person wanting their stallion checked would have to pay.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

I don't trust the government to tie their own shoelaces without ripping me off. I don't trust their good will, objectivity or even that they aren't perfectly able to harm and kill people for their own purposes. Keep any regulatory agencies OUT OF MY LIFE! I'd rather risk illness and harm than to be oppressed by Big Brother. Why would anyone else have a better idea what I want and need in a horse than I do? 

No thanks!


----------



## Farmer2B (Oct 20, 2011)

The Remount Program worked once, maybe we can make a simillar version work again.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

I don't have all the answers, I am simply giving my opinion and why I feel the way I do

I think each horse person should research options and have a plan they can live with, educate themselves what other options besides selling an unwanted animal to the knackers - and be fully educated on what dispatching an animal to their local auction/ slaughter house entails for the animal, an animal that in all likelihood is a superfluous result of a recreational equine culture, not the inevitable somehow substandard by product of a meat consuming society or one lacking modern automation and transport. We need to recognize the duality of our society, it is acceptable to slaughter and eat chickens â but not to allow two roosters to fight, because while a natural instinct my own free range birds do upon occasion if one gets over the fence, it is considered cruel to allow suffering for our entertainment and rightly so , is it any less so for the misery of a trip to the slaughter house for an animal largely bred and raised for our entertainment? The later may be considered a necessary evil, but does that negate the fact that both are suffering resulting largely because of human chosen pastimes?
I am not an impractical person. Just because I personally would not take that route, I certainly am not going to tell someone they can't, just as I try to refrain from endlessly advising people on how they should feed, house, shoe, and vaccinate their horse unless they ask 

The huge overflow of unwanted horses in the country I think it is a people problem, not a horse problem. Good regulation on slaughter facilities and rules about humane transport would be a start. One can make people act in a responsible manner, but one can make it costly to act in an irresponsible manner!
A few solutions might be, the process be modified with tax breaks for facilities to have animals humanely dispatched at the auction or other common location from which animals are brought for sale for slaughter and loaded in refrigerated trucks, while the visual of stacked horse carcasses might be more disconcerting; it is in reality a much more humane, and probably more cost effective way to transport horses destined for either the dinner table in Europe or what ever else they do with these horses to processing facilities (when I was a kid, and you lost a horse, the local foundry would drive up, winch the carcass, and remove it for you, not sure what they did with them either, back then they didn't charge) Our local county comes to bury your horse or other large animal free of charge if you request it, our vet often arranges that when he is scheduled to come out to put one down...
Some regulation or permit process of some kind for breeding or horse boarding facilities I think is a good idea, some basic process that at least brings facilities on the radar and makes the practice of having too many horses on a facility to support properly less attractive and more subject to oversight at least to reduce incidents of neglect or abuse. Donât want to restrict your freedoms, breed what you want, but be responsible for what ever you chose to do. My state requires I register my beehives for heavens sake. They might be heading that way anyway, I just got a form from the IRS asking me for information of the number of animals and type on my farm...interesting...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmer2B said:


> Breeding licenses. For stallions to stand at stud they must have approval from a registry or government agent if they are not purebred.
> 
> It'd reduce the number of horses and we would stop having horses whose necks go straight up and backs go straight down to their withers.
> 
> One problem is if we trust the Government and regestries, and the money it would take to hire this people. I suppose that the person wanting their stallion checked would have to pay.





Farmer2B said:


> The Remount Program worked once, maybe we can make a simillar version work again.


As Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" We simply do not need more government in our lives. The Remount Program worked because the WWI and WWII used up horses and mules at an incredible rate.


----------



## lasergrl (Nov 24, 2007)

We dont need the government to hold our hands and take away all the things we dislike.

I fail to see how a companion animal is different then a food animal. An animal is an animal. We can and should have all species for both purposes as far as laws are conscerned. What should be universal is humane care and dispatch. It is a good way to keep populations controlled. The only thing is that carnivores generally taste bad.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

Farmer2B said:


> The Remount Program worked once, maybe we can make a simillar version work again.


The Remount program worked because the government paid all of the expenses since the horses produced by this program were bred to be sold to the U.S. Cavalry. The Army owned the stallions, paid for the government agents that placed the stallions (the stallions were sent out to various breeders to be used on their mares). The resulting young horses (when they were 3 to 5 years old) were bought by Army buyers that had specific standards for height/weight/type and would buy only those that were suitable as cavalry and caisson horses. The breeders bred mares that would produce that kind of horse if bred to the Remount stallions voluntarily because they had a firm market for them ... if they bred mares too small or off type, they didn't have a horse they could sell.

When I was in Spain in the late 1960s the Spanish government had a similar program in place for horses because the number and quality of their horses had taken a huge drop during their revolution. The government kept a 'State Stud' at Jerez and every spring would send out stallions to the various provinces. The horse breeders went to the stables where these stallions were and selected the stallion or stallions they wanted to use on their mares for that season. The only cost was about $10 to cover the cost of insurance on each stallion for the breeding season. The only other requirement was that before the foals were weaned, the government inspectors came to the farm, inspected the foals and had the right to buy any they wanted for the state stud for "X" price. Anything that wasn't purchased by the government stud belonged to the breeder, to be kept or sold as they chose.

There is no way the U.S. government now could finance any kind of a horse breeding program like the Remount program and in fact it was not based on an 'inspection system' for horse breeders except as it related to suitable cavalry horses. They needed more horses for the cavalry and more horses of a certain type. The whole system was $$ based ... horse breeders were breeding for the sale market and the Remount service was, essentially, being funded in the same way as the research and development programs for modern jeeps and tanks, through government grants. The government is/was buying something that they had to have for the military ... they weren't subsidizing the horse business.

There is no conceivable way that private horse breeders could finance any kind of comprehensive, mandatory inspection service to regulate horse breeding. There would simply be too much money involved for it to be possible.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

farmgirl6 said:


> Some regulation or permit process of some kind for breeding or horse boarding facilities I think is a good idea, some basic process that at least brings facilities on the radar and makes the practice of having too many horses on a facility to support properly less attractive and more subject to oversight at least to reduce incidents of neglect or abuse. Donât want to restrict your freedoms, breed what you want, but be responsible for what ever you chose to do.


Seeing as how there are anti-cruelty and humane treatment and housing laws already on the book, just what regulations do you want, and who decides them? I'm particularly interested in the "too many horses" part.

Would 120 horses on 17 acres be too many, 5 of them breeding stallions? I bet 99 out of a hundred people who read that brought up the most horrible mental image, of emaciated mares and foals in knee deep mud and manure.
Want to see what it actually looks like?
http://www.knollfarm.com/aboutus.htm
Why, look! It's a high-class training and breeding stable with immaculate, Olympic quality horses! 
The horses spend most of their time stalled and are worked and exercised daily in the huge, indoor and outdoor arenas, and every other day or so, get a couple of hours to kick up their heels in one of 5 small paddocks. This schedule befits the trained athletes they are. 
It is pretty safe to say that your horses are not and will never be this fit and pampered. Mine aren't, and I trained there for 2 years and that's the standard of care I strive for. I got to bring Metallic and Spartacus a handful of grass every day, they got upset if they didn't get the little visit and tribute they deserved. Caring for horses of that caliber and even just watching Anne ride Metallic was an education.

Well, how about 4 horses on 5 acres? Is that ok?
Most people would say yes. My neighbor has 5 acres, and 4 horses - a mare and a stallion (neither of quality) in a small pen and 2 more in a smaller round pen. No shelter, not so much as a tree, no grass...

Hmmm, this is suddenly looking not so easy, isn't it?
This is why permits and regulations for "breeders and horse facilities" is simply a bad idea. All that can accomplish is to harass those who are already doing it right, burden those who already operate under regulations (because every public stable is already under regs, regarding humane treatment _and_ from their insurance company) and make it even more difficult, if not impossible, for those getting started in the field.
What is impossible to regulate out of existence, without such loss of freedom as to make Hitler look like an easy-going kind of fellow, is the exact ones you want to target.
There is no way to word it to weed out just those, and leave everyone else alone.

So no, regulation of breeders and stables is not the answer. And if an owner is not going to do well by their horses, they just are not, and no amount of regulation will change that. As it is, they manage under the radar until animal services is called out and then the animals are seized and/or there are fines, or even jail.
What more do you want???

The fact that there is a people problem, as you put it, doesn't change the fact that there are, and have always been, horses that are unsuitable for use. For many, many reasons, including just being born with something wrong, physically or mentally.
What do you do with them? Are YOU keeping them all as pasture pets? AND paying for euthanasia and disposal?? How about the vicious ones? (and no, it's not always abuse) I knew a _lovely_ little buttermilk buckskin filly. Prettiest thing you've ever seen. Hard birth, cord broke early and it did something to her brain. She could not be trusted, not with people, not with horses.
Can you see how even a trip on "the truck" would be a favor to her? So young, so beautiful, so damaged. How much abuse will she suffer, how many horses and people will she injure, or maybe kill, she nailed me a good one in the chest, sheer luck I'm here - are you going to give her owner a thousand dollars to have her put down and buried?

Not so easy, is it? Still think regulation of breeders is the answer?


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

> I think each horse person should research options and have a plan they can live with, educate themselves what other options besides selling an unwanted animal to the knackers...


I can live with sending my horse to the knackers, in some circumstances it seems quite the most correct course. And, no, I am not uneducated. I have a different opinion than you do is all.


----------



## Rogo (Jan 1, 2006)

A bullet and a backhoe will no doubt continue to be used here in Arizona. And some will continue to just use a bullet out in the desert and leave a meal for the wildlife.

And also, folks will continue to toss their unwanted equines into a herd of wild ones. BLM says that's why some of their wild ones are so big!

When I bought my mini ranch - only 40 acres - the seller told me there were quite a few bodies in them thar hills. Sometimes it's not the cost, but just having your critters buried at home. Any critter that's worked hard for you and has given his all for a lot of years is like family.

My present mount is 24 and doesn't show any signs of slowing down. I keep thinking of a friend's horse who was 45 when he was buried!


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

Otter said:


> Seeing as how there are anti-cruelty and humane treatment and housing laws already on the book, just what regulations do you want, and who decides them? I'm particularly interested in the "too many horses" part.
> 
> Would 120 horses on 17 acres be too many, 5 of them breeding stallions? I bet 99 out of a hundred people who read that brought up the most horrible mental image, of emaciated mares and foals in knee deep mud and manure.
> Want to see what it actually looks like?
> ...


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

farmgirl6 said:


> (Although I have sincere doubts that any animal enduring that type of final end would consider a favor was done them), if you have the room a bullet and a shovel costs no where near $1000 bucks but harder than loading them on a truck for sure.


I think the 'favor' would be when comparing slaughter to starving to death, not otherwise. And unfortunately, in many urbanized areas, it is illegal to bury an animal on your own property.

Although I am definitely pro-slaughter for a number of reasons, I wish there were a practical, workable solution to the unwanted horse question. I simply haven't seen anything I considered workable in any way. Goal is great ... no horses sent to slaughter, no horses starving and abused ... no unwanted horses. But no practical suggestions on how to get to that goal.

For myself, I know I am very fortunate. I am able (and willing) to put mine down myself ... I know how and can do it with one shot, no trauma. They are eating grain ... bang ... lights out. I have never had to use a second bullet. (I did have one unfortunate experience with vet-assisted euthanasia with IV drugs). And even more fortunate, our local county will pick up the carcass and dispose of it for just $25.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmgirl6 said:


> (Although I have sincere doubts that any animal enduring that type of final end would consider a favor was done them), if you have the room a bullet and a shovel costs no where near $1000 bucks but harder than loading them on a truck for sure.


I snipped the anthropomorphizing Disneyesque rant. There are already regulations in place for the humane shipment of horses to slaughter. The US had, and Canadian continues to have, highly regulated slaughter facilities. Captive bolt to the head or starving to death? It's a no brainer.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmgirl6, I understand you're anti slaughter but unless I missed something, I don't think you've offered any solutions. How do you feel the saturated horse market could be handled? It's great to tell everybody how you keep your horses but obviously others are either unwilling or unable to do that and horses are suffering terribly. As for your suggestion that a shovel is cheaper than a backhoe, I'd welcome you to head up to Montana in December and help a horse owner dig that hole and what about the people that don't have room?


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

I guess it's easier to pretend there is an insult somewhere there obviously isn't and blow up about it then to answer a direct question.

You said you wanted regulations and specifically mentioned crowding. How would you word a regulation to both assure proper care and not just harass a place like Knoll's Farm?

Why do you feel it would be more effective to regulate breeders then to enforce pre-existing regulations on slaughter and transport? 
How would you get those regulations to put pressure on only poor breeders, while leaving the good, self-policing kind alone, and without putting unnecessary burden on those starting out?

And to go off on a tangent and answer your question, I don't know if your horses would want to switch, seeing as I've never met them. But I've worked with the horses I talked about and you might not believe it but no, no they wouldn't. They don't get to that level of competition unless they really love it and you have to retire them carefully because they've been known to pine away and die if you take their work away from them.


----------



## DamnearaFarm (Sep 27, 2007)

Holy carp- I couldn't imagine hand digging a hole for an adult horse (six feet or deeper and still limed intensively to keep predators away)... and i've dug one for a foal in recently turned earth.
Disposing on your own property sometimes just isn't an option.

As i've said since the whole anti-slaughter debate began, when someone shows me an EFFECTIVE method of dealing with unwanted horses then I will rethink my position on slaughter. 

I have worked horse rescue for many years and can guarantee I have taken horses (alive or dead) from situations that would make many folks have nighmares for weeks. I can say, with certainty, that the majority of those calls and the majority of the worst calls came after the plants closed. 
Supposition and rhetoric can only take you so far... when you've SEEN the look in the eyes of a horse that's down and literally starving to death, whose body has consumed even her own bone marrow in a fight for survival, well.. then you know which of the two is the more humane answer.


----------



## DamnearaFarm (Sep 27, 2007)

I mean, gee-look at this young horse:















Doesn't she look better off since those plants closed?












Btw, she was still ALIVE in that second picture. Can you fathom the pain and suffering she endured before her death?


----------



## lasergrl (Nov 24, 2007)

There are always going to be old horses, untrainable horses, crazy horses, and injured horses. Why on earth should the meat be wasted for human emotion? If it is your horse, then dont do it. Pretty easy solution. If you dont want it to happen to a horse then buy the horse. I would personally like to see it used in pet food or people food here since that is a win win. The horses wont have to travel, and an animal won't rot in the earth. I used to see "horse" labeled dog food when I was a kid, and Im 30. With the use of temple grandins ideas the slaughter house doesnt have to be so bad.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I couldn't do what you do, RamblinRoseRanch the person that did that would be gravely injured or dead. :flame: 

People like you are heroes in my book.


----------



## DamnearaFarm (Sep 27, 2007)

Thanks, Pixie. 

Trust me.... there are times I am glad I don't have a cc permit. REALLY glad.


----------



## Rogo (Jan 1, 2006)

Oops, ya better not come to Arizona, RRR, no permit is needed for open or concealed carry!!


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

I have already said, I guess there is no solution. I am convinced that most people believe there is no solution. I am agreeing with you. There seems to be a desperate need on this thread to have me agree with it why? what difference does it matter if I am of a differing opinion? 

Of course I am anti-slaughter house, who is "pro" slaughter house? There are many folks who obviously believe it is necessary and the only option, but I can't imagine any horse owner being "pro" having to send a horse to slaughter? I am pro responsibility. I am pro destroying an animal in the comfort of its own home if you ainât gonna eat it! I am not concerned that all horses must be saved, never said that. Don't care if people eat horses, they might be tasty, I said I personally feel that we have a responsibility on how that end comes. 

I frankly did not know slaughter had been outlawed for years here anyway because I have never used that option... funny, I myself have never sent a horse to the knackers, horse people in my family have never done it, don't have any friends who have ever done so, never met anyone who would admit doing so in my circles (the associate's horse I saw at the killer yard on my visit was not a friend) but apparently lots of folks have because there is a lot of sensitivity about it and a lot of horses going and apparently it is big business 

Truth is, been there, seen it in Texas, it is not a good or kind situation for the animals to travel to or be at these facilities. I am sure there are regulations, but from the facility I saw, and it was a major clearing center apparently, and the loads of horses coming in, I can't imagine what they might be. I saw horses down in crowded pens, few animals that did not have some sort of injury, most minor cuts and gashes but some clearly dislocated and broken limbs. Most frightened, disoriented, stressed or in some level of shock. Having seen it, would never wish it on any horse, evil necessity or not. 

Don't believe me? google it. I could post pictures as well...but you guys won't like it... Thatâs the reality of what I saw, smelled, heard - and my guess due to the nature of the business likely the norm. donât believe me, google itâ¦ beaten? nope...food and water? yup, hay and water barrels..so maybe that is the regulation so touted...these folks were even running the finer bred animals into a cattle squeeze shoot, snubbing them down, and trimming and cleaning them up, and sending them back out to auction to try and give them a second chance, though I imagine it was more for monetary reasons than anything elseâ¦

Having seen that, I have a plan for any horses I own in place long before the time comes. I have taken care to have the necessary means to take care of it. I have arranged to have it taken care of if something happens to me. That is my solution. I don't have to come up with a solution for anyone else. Nor do I have to agree slaughter houses are a great solution to make someone who has used them feel better about it - your horse, your choice.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

Otter said:


> I guess it's easier to pretend there is an insult somewhere there obviously isn't and blow up about it then to answer a direct question.
> 
> what was the question? and I haven't "blown up" once, just stated my opinion, from your reaction just guessing you have sent horses to the knackers...
> 
> ...


you took the shot implying it was unlikely my horses were as well cared for as the ones at your facility... and if you believe that an animal that by nature roams in herds, is highly social, in the wild rarely travels faster than a trot, is designed to spend much of his day grazing is much happier spending his days in a stall, a small paddock, or on a regimented exercise routine being worked by human beings, with an occiaisonal handful of grass, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. Having been an assistant riding coach at an Olympic Training center that handled the stadium jumping phase of the Modern Pentathlon in my youth, seen the horses lifestyle and tend to disagree.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

wr said:


> farmgirl6, I understand you're anti slaughter but unless I missed something, I don't think you've offered any solutions. How do you feel the saturated horse market could be handled? It's great to tell everybody how you keep your horses but obviously others are either unwilling or unable to do that and horses are suffering terribly. As for your suggestion that a shovel is cheaper than a backhoe, I'd welcome you to head up to Montana in December and help a horse owner dig that hole and what about the people that don't have room?


there is quite a lot of misinformation about slaugher houses and the use of horse meat, and how much slaughter houses help with abuse and neglect, what horses end up there, ect... A good read is wikipedia on the subject. it is a fairly unbiased account worth a read.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Good for you and your animals, truly. When you talk about regulation you're impinging on my livelihood, and my right to do with _my_ horses what I want. You don't like slaughter? Fine, don't sell a horse (it could end up in a kill pen) but don't try to legislate what I can and can't do with my stock. 

FYI, I had an old gelding put down 2 years ago and he's buried behind my barn. Again, my horse and my choice of what to do with him.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Good for you and your animals, truly. When you talk about regulation you're impinging on my livelihood, and my right to do with _my_ horses what I want. You don't like slaughter? Fine, don't sell a horse (it could end up in a kill pen) but don't try to legislate what I can and can't do with my stock.
> 
> FYI, I had an old gelding put down 2 years ago and he's buried behind my barn. Again, my horse and my choice of what to do with him.


then why so angry with my position? you did exactly what I would do. You probably could have sent him off, maybe even made a few bucks, but didn't even though it was probably harder for you...I don't want to legislate, I want to make it easier to find the people who cause those pictures like the one above..isn't that worth filling out a few pieces of paper?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmgirl6 said:


> then why so angry with my position? you did exactly what I would do. You probably could have sent him off, maybe even made a few bucks, but didn't even though it was probably harder for you...I don't want to legislate, I want to make it easier to find the people who cause those pictures like the one above..isn't that worth filling out a few pieces of paper?


No, it's not. Those few pieces of paper are a slippery slope to regulations. I absolutely don't want any more government regulation in my life. That horse died under horrific conditions (according to RRR) because of the slaughter ban. Neglect cases have increased dramatically because people didn't have the *option* of sending to slaughter.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I don't feel anybody is taking any shots. You commented on how you care for your horses and I think we all agree that your horses have a good place but you're also anti slaughter and not every horse is in a good place and I know I would love to hear your suggestions on how this could be handled. 

I don't think many horse owners are enthusiastic about knowing horses are sent for slaughter but some recognize the problem to be huge and there just aren't many viable solutions to the problem that won't have a negative impact on the good guys.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

farmgirl6 said:


> you took the shot implying it was unlikely my horses were as well cared for as the ones at your facility...


No, I didn't, if there was even a hint that I had, WR would have come down on me for it. What I said was neither your horses nor mine were that fit or pampered - which does not imply that they aren't cared for.
The point - that you chose to ignore, just like you quoted my whole post but chose to ignore every question in it - is that regulations such as the _type you suggested_ would punish those insanely dedicated owners with their insanely well-cared for horses and while doing nothing to stop any abuse or neglect.
Which is the problem with over-regulating.

You have said several times that it seems important for us to convince you. I don't really care what you think. What I care about is that you want to breeze in, announce we should be regulated and then bow out. Sorry, no, that is not an acceptable answer. If you don't have _*any idea*_ of what those regulations should be, but are ready to impose them on people - :umno:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Otter said:


> You have said several times that it seems important for us to convince you. I don't really care what you think. What I care about is that you want to breeze in, announce we should be regulated and then bow out. Sorry, no, that is not an acceptable answer. If you don't have _*any idea*_ of what those regulations should be, but are ready to impose them on people - :umno:


This sums it up for me as well. It was a large group of uninformed people that originated the slaughter ban in the first place and we all know how well that bit of nonsense turned out.


----------



## wolffeathers (Dec 20, 2010)

farmgirl6 said:


> then why so angry with my position?


I think the opposition comes because while the pro-slaughter position holds no bearing on how you care for your horses, an anti-slaughter campaign involving regulation would have bearing on how everyone takes care of theirs.

I don't think anyone is judging you for being anti-slaughter. But by pushing for breeder/owner regulations, you are effecting the entire industry, breeders and pet owners alike. 

Regulations are a slippery slope and often based on opinions that change over time. I know people that think a horse belongs in a stall and paddock, not left out to pasture. So how long before that regulation that was meant to simply keep horses from slaughter, turns into an inspector showing up at your door and barn and giving you warnings or confiscating your horses because they don't live up to "their" standards. 

There are already laws in place meant to prevent what RRR posted earlier. It is not legal to starve an animal or allow one to die from neglect or abuse. I personally think that adding more laws, to be more specific, is only going to make it harder on "law-abiding" owners. The people who starve horses today, would still starve horses tomorrow; whether another law "prohibiting" them to do so is passed tonight or not. 

I don't think anyone is trying to change your anti-slaughter opinion, it is an opinion you are entitled to. The opposition comes from the regulation. (Like pro-slaughter will not stop you from caring and disposing of your horses as you see fit; but if anti-slaughter regulations were passed, it would "force" every "law-abiding" owner to not do things as they saw fit, but as the government told them to. 

If the goverment said that your horses needed to be stalled a certain number of hours a day "per regulation", would you agree? Or would you tell the government to shove off, because you feel your horses should be free to remain pastured?

I just don't want you to think/feel that everyone is attacking you or the fact that you're anti-slaughter.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmgirl6, If you're snippy because you think that somebody is trying to change your mind, what makes you think that snarking at other members is going to convince them to change their position??


----------



## DamnearaFarm (Sep 27, 2007)

Honestly, wr.... in my experience whenever a person that is adamantly anti-slaughter is involved with a pro-slaughter person, be it IRL or online they fall back and become defensive because, while they are shouting loudly about how wrong slaughter is and how the horses suffer they have no viable solution for the situation. I have yet to see an anti-slaughter argument, ANYWHERE, that, once you remove the anthropomorphizing and the emotions, have any basis in fact. 
The numbers of abused/neglected/abandoned horses DID rise after the closing of the slaughter plants.
The horse industry- from feed and care items all the way up to the most well-bred animals available for purchase- did decline, in varying amounts. 
These are facts. They can't be argued away with rhetoric and 'Disneyeque' mindsets. They are what they are.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

RamblinRoseRanc, the thing most don't realize is that even with the slaughter ban in place, several cargo flights a week, full of live horses are shipped from Canada and the US to Japan. With the decline in the tuna population, the Japanese have become quite fond of using horse as a substitute. 

We ship a lot of boxed meat and sides to France, Quebec consumes a fair bit and I've been told that Vancouver is seeing a fair amount of demand for horse meat.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

I recommend one do some research, I don't mean the more inflammatory stuff on the SPCA, the more unbiased stuff on Wikipedia and such. You will find the many of the myths about what horse slaughter does for "sick and old horses" and "reduces neglect" are just that, myths in many cases. You might be surprised to find the vast majority of animals that run through these houses are not old or infirmed, but healthy animals. That tells me the problem is one of over breeding, not a final solution for unwanted unhealthy elderly animals. That the use of horse meat in dog food was banned in the 70's, and that only 1% of the horse population goes through the slaughter even when it is legal in the country disputes it doing anything significant to reduce neglect or starvation. 90% of horse meat goes overseas for human consumption, 10% to zoos. That slaughter yards in this country are not generally set up or owned or run by American companies, but companies from overseas and regulated by the EU - plants in Canada and Mexico have been sited over 900 times for incidents of cruelty, ect. You might be surprised which groups are advocating for horse slaughter, primarily the meat companies (because they fear the ban on horse slaughter will overlap into a ban on all meat products) and, I didn't see this coming, the American Quarter Horse Association. What is not a myth often the misery endured by these animals. Seen it....That is no myth and there is nothing even remotely "Disney" about that, and the one thing all the folks calling me to task over my position just sort of gloss over, and my big objection to how it is done. But wait, I am sorry, that is right, the same folks who tell me they don't trust the government oversight on breeding operations are quick to point out that the government regulates the slaughter and transportation of these animals..okay dokey... And probably the most interesting fact, the EU will NOT accept most American Horses for slaughter for human consumption, at least not the animals everyone claims end up here, the old and infirmed, because, and this is not my words, this is from items written about this "American horses are generally not "raised" for meat purposes, therefore the vast majority of the medicine and vaccinations given to horses do not have tested withdrawal periods or safety testing for human consumption". And my final question, how many folks lambasting me have ever actually been to one of these places? Just curious&#8230;.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

And this is my origional post, that caused all the firestorm and flaming arrows....I stated my opinion and my support for that opinion...not emotional, certainly not personally attacking....are they a main source of food in the American diet, nope...are the vast majority bred in the country for entertainment purposes as opposed to working animals..yup...do we take to task our fellow horse owners who we feel are not taking care of thier animals to our standards...yup...do we arrogantly classify them by situation? opinion definately - when it comes to wanted horses we become incensed if we feel this "livestock" is subject to cruelty and neglect and demand the same protections "companion animals" have- unwanted...they are livestock. As they are creatures largely bred and owned in this country for personal enjoyment and necessity, do we have any special moral obligation from being at the top of the food chain on what happens to them? Most definately opinion..in my opinion, I would think so. bleeding heart liberal...nope stanch conservative, uninformed? nope, have done my research, to the point of actually visiting a facility. 

we don't eat horses in this country so they are not truly livestock in that sense, and as they are not used for transportation much in this country they are simply owned and bred for human entertainment, so society choses to have and breed these animals, and in my opinion, has a unique responsibilty for their well being and the quality of their life and death....we don't have to have horses in most places, we want to have horses...so there is a distinct difference between them and cattle for sure. Having owned pet cattle, they also get the short stick as we arrogantly classify them to suit our needs as well, but at least they are not bred and raised for our entertainment then when the cease to be entertaining or become costly, we want to ship them off and make a few bucks. We fuss and worry endlessly about the "wanted horses", reduce stress, put up safe fence, give them companions, watch what we feed them, wrap their legs and cover their heads when we load them in trailers. Yet we are fine with unwanted horses being terrified and loaded shoulder to shoulder in large cattle trailers, put in paddocks with strange horses in strange places - it is not the end that is so troubling, it is means to the end. Is starvation and neglect better? No, but I am not sure slaughter houses are the answer; I am for euthinasia and disposal I think....that will be the fate of any horse that shares my life for my entertainment...it is the least I owe them..just my opinion...


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

well looks like the debate about regulation might be over, for the first time this year have received a questionaire from the National Agricultural department tellling me by law that I have to report the size of my facility, ignored it the first time to see what would happen, just got a nasty gram...all the animals on it including my bees, ect....do not put your horses on your taxes if you want to stay off this radar for those who object to government oversite...we should have gotten out in front of this with to have some input and control; but my guess is the government has decided we can't self regulate so they are going to do it for us....it says it is just for statistic purposes...could be I guess...


----------



## 6e (Sep 10, 2005)

I live in a state that wasn't touched by the shut down of the slaughter houses quite as much as other states, but I did watch the horse market deteriorate rapidly after horse slaughter was enacted and began hearing more and more stories of people dumping horses, horses showing up in pastures or in trailers, horses starved to death because they couldn't be given away. The last couple of years you couldn't hardly pay someone to take them. That's how bad it got and the abuse and neglect went right along with it because people couldn't get rid of the horse and didn't have the means to care for it as the end of horse slaughter also went with the decline in the economy and no one had any money. 
We do have a responsibility to care for our animals. No doubt about that. But when people find themselves in the situation where they no longer can, they found themselves with no out. A horse that, 5 years ago or so, paid $1500 and up for, all of a sudden was worth maybe a few hundred at best and there was no one to take them. Then drought came and no hay. I saw ad after ad after ad of very skinny horses up for free because no hay and they couldn't sell them. And what was even worse, those same free horse ads would run for weeks before someone took them. Rescues were filled to the brim, over flowing with horses and no room to take more and no homes to take the ones they had. 
To me, horse slaughter is necessary. It keeps the market somewhat stable and keeps the mass over population of horses. 
I agree that over breeding is a problem. Everyone that has a mare in heat thinks they need a foal with absolutely no thought with what to do with the foal after it's born other than it'd be "cute" to have a baby horse. There are SO many young, untrained horses for sale all the time and I constantly see in the ad, "I bought this horse with the idea of training it and I just don't have the time" or worse. And most of the horses are mediocre at best. Interestingly though, the ban of slaughter there for awhile did not discourage breeding amongst the mediocre horses....it just passively encouraged neglect. I saw an ad on CL of a foal, mare, stallion and last years foal all up for sale cheap and every single one of them looked pretty bad except for the foal and that's because it was nursing off mama. Why they bred them, I'm sure I'll never know and why everyone stands a stud just because it's great, great, great, great grandpa was so and so, is beyond me.
I'm sure horrible things do go on at slaughter plants. Fact of the matter is, the whole place was never meant to be a vacation spot for horses and cattle slaughter houses are filled with no less horrors. It's a fact of life. Horrible as it is. And this sounds horrible and I by no means condone abuse or neglect, but feel that people are to be held responsible for their actions, but on the other hand, they ARE animals and no more.


----------



## 6e (Sep 10, 2005)

farmgirl6 said:


> well looks like the debate about regulation might be over, for the first time this year have received a questionaire from the National Agricultural department tellling me by law that I have to report the size of my facility, ignored it the first time to see what would happen, just got a nasty gram...all the animals on it including my bees, ect....do not put your horses on your taxes if you want to stay off this radar for those who object to government oversite...we should have gotten out in front of this with to have some input and control; but my guess is the government has decided we can't self regulate so they are going to do it for us....it says it is just for statistic purposes...could be I guess...


Do you live in Montana by chance? A friend of mine got one and wanted to know how many bees. I asked if they were going to count the bees. LOL


----------



## lasergrl (Nov 24, 2007)

Cattle are shipped by the thousands. Most are young and healthy. The end product is consumed. Does this mean they are being over bred? A horse is a consumable herbivore no different then a cow. Why do they get special treatment? I don't think it matters if they are PURPOSELY bred for meat. Just because they are rideable and pretty makes little difference.


----------



## 6e (Sep 10, 2005)

lasergrl said:


> Cattle are shipped by the thousands. Most are young and healthy. The end product is consumed. Does this mean they are being over bred? A horse is a consumable herbivore no different then a cow. Why do they get special treatment? I don't think it matters if they are PURPOSELY bred for meat. Just because they are rideable and pretty makes little difference.


That's true too. The ONLY thing that makes horses different is that there's no regulation on the medication that is given to horses meant for slaughter. I would love to try horse meat. I've heard it's very good. I'm all for breeding them for meat, if they can regulate the meds given them with the slaughter withdrawal times.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

If we can't count on the government to properly regulate the slaughter industry, what makes anyone think they can properly regulate the breeding of horses? I, for one, am strongly against the regulation of something like that, what horse ought to be bred is highly subjective and is a personal decision. 

The small farmers and animal lovers are actually at odds with the governmental regulations. There are powers (mega agricultural industries) that don't want the competition and want to pressure the governmental agencies (USDA, FDA) to regulate small farms out of business. There are powers that very much want our country to become part of a larger governmental system and that want to regulate our freedom away for that purpose. Our markets are manipulated, our thoughts are given to us on the evening news (be outraged at THIS, agree to THAT, the other is just a nut case, ridicule THAT) and people are largely unaware. 

The one true living God had a hand in the formation of this country as a witness to His love of freedom and hatred of tyranny and oppression. There is powerful opposition on the level of principalities to that freedom. We can't help but to be affected by those powers, because they are simply stronger than we are and we are not aware even of them without being shown. What we deal with here in governments and thoughts and contentions is all a part of the bigger contention of who is God? Who will we follow and give our obedience to? There are many "gods" - other powers in the angelics - but only one true God, who is the Creator of all things. It is my desire to stand for freedom, even at the expense of my own comfort. If I am able to do so, it is because of my God. If not, it is my own failing, because I am easily overcome by my own love of comfort.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmgirl6 said:


> I recommend one do some research, I don't mean the more inflammatory stuff on the SPCA, the more unbiased stuff on Wikipedia and such. You will find the many of the myths about what horse slaughter does for "sick and old horses" and "reduces neglect" are just that, myths in many cases. You might be surprised to find the vast majority of animals that run through these houses are not old or infirmed, but healthy animals. That tells me the problem is one of over breeding, not a final solution for unwanted unhealthy elderly animals. That the use of horse meat in dog food was banned in the 70's, and that only 1% of the horse population goes through the slaughter even when it is legal in the country disputes it doing anything significant to reduce neglect or starvation. 90% of horse meat goes overseas for human consumption, 10% to zoos. That slaughter yards in this country are not generally set up or owned or run by American companies, but companies from overseas and regulated by the EU - plants in Canada and Mexico have been sited over 900 times for incidents of cruelty, ect. You might be surprised which groups are advocating for horse slaughter, primarily the meat companies (because they fear the ban on horse slaughter will overlap into a ban on all meat products) and, I didn't see this coming, the American Quarter Horse Association. What is not a myth often the misery endured by these animals. Seen it....That is no myth and there is nothing even remotely "Disney" about that, and the one thing all the folks calling me to task over my position just sort of gloss over, and my big objection to how it is done. But wait, I am sorry, that is right, the same folks who tell me they don't trust the government oversight on breeding operations are quick to point out that the government regulates the slaughter and transportation of these animals..okay dokey... And probably the most interesting fact, the EU will NOT accept most American Horses for slaughter for human consumption, at least not the animals everyone claims end up here, the old and infirmed, because, and this is not my words, this is from items written about this "American horses are generally not "raised" for meat purposes, therefore the vast majority of the medicine and vaccinations given to horses do not have tested withdrawal periods or safety testing for human consumption". And my final question, how many folks lambasting me have ever actually been to one of these places? Just curiousâ¦.





farmgirl6 said:


> well looks like the debate about regulation might be over, for the first time this year have received a questionaire from the National Agricultural department tellling me by law that I have to report the size of my facility, ignored it the first time to see what would happen, just got a nasty gram...all the animals on it including my bees, ect....do not put your horses on your taxes if you want to stay off this radar for those who object to government oversite...we should have gotten out in front of this with to have some input and control; but my guess is the government has decided we can't self regulate so they are going to do it for us....it says it is just for statistic purposes...could be I guess...


I've received those questionnaires for years and never responded to them. The only questionnaire that has to be answered is the US Census. 

So, I take it you think regulations are a _bad thing_ now? 

To answer your prior question- the regulations regarding slaughter and shipping to slaughter have been in place for at least 20 years, so my stance is that we need no *new* regulations, there are plenty already. Wikipedia is not a creditable source, you realize that anyone can add or delete from a Wiki page, right? The EU has no jursidiction in the United States, it does regulate processing plants in Canada. I'm not going to argue with you (banging my head on a wall gives me a headache) but you seriously need to do more research on this subject and I suggest staying away from the PETA and animal rights sites.


----------



## DamnearaFarm (Sep 27, 2007)

wr said:


> RamblinRoseRanc, the thing most don't realize is that even with the slaughter ban in place, several cargo flights a week, full of live horses are shipped from Canada and the US to Japan. With the decline in the tuna population, the Japanese have become quite fond of using horse as a substitute.
> 
> We ship a lot of boxed meat and sides to France, Quebec consumes a fair bit and I've been told that Vancouver is seeing a fair amount of demand for horse meat.


Not to mention horses than are shipped over the border to Mexico.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

6e said:


> That's true too. The ONLY thing that makes horses different is that there's no regulation on the medication that is given to horses meant for slaughter. I would love to try horse meat. I've heard it's very good. I'm all for breeding them for meat, if they can regulate the meds given them with the slaughter withdrawal times.


not true. there are medication withdrawl requirements for ALL livestock. unfortunately the meat industry is filled w/people & like anywhere else SOME of those people are shady. since you can't catch them all, occasionaly a medicated animal winds up in your big mac. not right but it is a fact of life in a world whose population is so ig it can only be sustained through factory farming.


----------



## 6e (Sep 10, 2005)

Pops2 said:


> not true. there are medication withdrawl requirements for ALL livestock. unfortunately the meat industry is filled w/people & like anywhere else SOME of those people are shady. since you can't catch them all, occasionaly a medicated animal winds up in your big mac. not right but it is a fact of life in a world whose population is so ig it can only be sustained through factory farming.


True. But most horses aren't raised with the idea that they "might" wind up on someone's big mac. LOL

Granny Carol, I agree that the last thing we want is more government over sight into anything, including breeding, but don't you think that people should be responsible enough in and of themselves not to breed if they have no clue what they will do with the resulting foal and not breeding for any particular purpose in mind other than they might make a buck selling the foal? shrug. Maybe I've been around dog breeders too long, but at least with cows, pigs, goats, rabbits, chickens, etc.....if you breed yourself into the poor house with them....at least you can eat them. Most people go out and shoot Lightning and start butchering him, most neighbors are going to wig.


----------



## Lazy J (Jan 2, 2008)

6e said:


> True. But most horses aren't raised with the idea that they "might" wind up on someone's big mac. LOL
> 
> Granny Carol, I agree that the last thing we want is more government over sight into anything, including breeding, but don't you think that people should be responsible enough in and of themselves not to breed if they have no clue what they will do with the resulting foal and not breeding for any particular purpose in mind other than they might make a buck selling the foal? shrug. Maybe I've been around dog breeders too long, but at least with cows, pigs, goats, rabbits, chickens, etc.....if you breed yourself into the poor house with them....at least you can eat them. Most people go out and shoot Lightning and start butchering him, most neighbors are going to wig.


In my county most of the horses are viewed and raised as Livestock, they are work horses. If they can no longer work they need to leave the farm. Horse slaughter is the best option for me and my neighbors if we choose not to keep the horses untile they die naturally.

The view that a horse is a Pet is a recent thing, defintley less than 100 years and is the result of two thing in my mind. First, the internal combustion engine, we no longer depend onthe horse for transportation. Secondly, we are RICH so we can squander resources on a large pet. Imagine how many cows, sheep, and hogs we could raise on the feed used for the large Horse Pet industry.

The entire Horse Slaughter issue revolves around a mythical, anthropomorphic view of the horse by do-gooders that don't care about the consequences and want to force their view of the horse on the entire world. Unfortunately horses have suffered because of that.

Jim


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Lazy J said:


> The entire Horse Slaughter issue revolves around a mythical, anthropomorphic view of the horse by do-gooders that don't care about the consequences and want to force their view of the horse on the entire world. Unfortunately horses have suffered because of that.
> 
> Jim


Well said and thank you. :thumb:


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

Lazy J said:


> The entire Horse Slaughter issue revolves around a mythical, anthropomorphic view of the horse by do-gooders that don't care about the consequences and want to force their view of the horse on the entire world. Unfortunately horses have suffered because of that.
> 
> Jim


This same scenario has happened not only with horses but also with dogs.

A hundred years ago, dogs were the only method of transportation in Alaska and northern Canada. Dogs were also used in the west, in large packs, to hunt coyotes, wolves, mountain lion and other predators. They were not considered pets, they were livestock ... working animals.

With modern transportation methods putting dogs pretty much out of a job as transportation in the north and fences and poison solving much of the predator problem, dogs made the transition from livestock/working animal to pet and different attitudes came into play.

This is exactly where and why horses are having a problem now.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

anthropomorphic..I get tickled when I read that word and how it is being used..big and fancy, but it means to credit human attributes to plants or animals, terminology developed when dealing with the practice of treating animals or plants like dieties..I guess to be okay with this we must believe animals lack the "human attributes" of fear, stress, shock and pain that is inevitable with sending these animals we have gone to great pains to breed to be sensitive and intelligent - to slaughter houses -as I said, I have seen first hand...over fifteen years ago...and yet it leaves a lasting impression...

My favorite quote from one of my husband's Great Grandfathers good friends:

"In studying the traits and dispositions of the so-called lower animals, and contrasting them with man's, I find the result humiliating to me."--Mark Twain (author)


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmgirl6, do you have a problem with cattle, goats, pigs, chickens, goats or turkeys to slaugher? Some feel they experience fear and pain too.


----------



## DamnearaFarm (Sep 27, 2007)

wr said:


> farmgirl6, do you have a problem with cattle, goats, pigs, chickens, goats or turkeys to slaugher? Some feel they experience fear and pain too.


Ditto. I always wonder how many people that are against horse slaughter are vegetarians. ALL animals feel stress, pain, fear, etc. Why is it ok for a cow to be killed with a captive bolt and not a horse? 
Why is it ok for us to eat a slice of ham but not a slice of horse, should we choose? 
Why is it acceptable for other livestock to be slaughtered and not horses?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> farmgirl6, do you have a problem with cattle, goats, pigs, chickens, goats or turkeys to slaugher? Some feel they experience fear and pain too.





RamblinRoseRanc said:


> Ditto. I always wonder how many people that are against horse slaughter are vegetarians. ALL animals feel stress, pain, fear, etc. Why is it ok for a cow to be killed with a captive bolt and not a horse?
> Why is it ok for us to eat a slice of ham but not a slice of horse, should we choose?
> Why is it acceptable for other livestock to be slaughtered and not horses?


I asked the same thing awhile back, and nothing but crickets. 

My daughters knew that slaughter was necessary when they were fairly young, they didn't like it but they understood why.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

To answer your questions, yes I eat meat, I raise my own chickens and eggs, I buy beef locally that is organic, farm raised, and processed in house, and I do not as a rule eat pork (we just don't like it), so I donât just âtalk the talkâ I âwalk the walkâ, for more than one reason, partly because I an naive enough to at least try to be a decent person at the top of the food chain as much as I can manage it this modern age, partly because I donât like what they feed food animals these days I prefer not to have a hand growing out of my forehead thanks to the steroids and such...
have already noted in previous posts that I thought other food animals had gotten the short end of the stick as far as how they are transported and handled at slaughter and I think in those cases we have an obligation to make that more necessary experience as humane as possible, just because I like to think and hope we are evolved enough for that to be of concern, and have been pleased to see some real, simple steps taken by caring folks to make that those facilities improve practices. However, as I have said before, I find horses to be in an even more unique role in that, once again, WE DO NOT GENERALLY RAISE THEM FOR FOOD. Horses in this country are raised generally for recreation. While in practice one might claim there is no difference exercising identical slaughter practices for horses as those utilized for cows or chickens (I believe the only difference is the height of the hanging lifts) and that our obligation to them is no different based on the role they play, and that seems to be a pretty small distinction to some folks - but we have, by deliberate design, spent decades breeding and developing them to be companion animals for the most part in this day and age, have we not?, gone to great lengths to make them intelligent and sensitive, responsive to our needs? The dog analogy was excellent, we have not done so with the animals we specifically raise for food. I own horses and cows, chicken and turkeys, and one might argue the food animals I own are probably above average for intelligence and sensitivity due to a large amount of personal interaction; however despite this none of those animals I own, which one would consider "food animals", have the levels of sensitivity, penchant for fear, or difficulty dealing with stress as do the horses, or perceived attachment to my person and their companions. That is just a fact. Raise your voice at my horses, they become agitated; raise your voice at my cows? They might move out of the way, or they may knock you through the fence depending on the mood..every time I go in the pen with my chickens, I get the impression they are sizing me up, deciding how I would taste


Irish Pixie said:


> I asked the same thing awhile back, and nothing but crickets.
> When I tend to hear crickets is when I ask those who âchastise meâ, give me the implied contempt for my ânaivetyâ for voicing concern to the horse slaughter transport and slaughter practice as it stands, based on my actual experience with one, (searching for a well loved animal that was stolen for a friend)â¦..âhas anyone else actually visited one of these facilitiesâ?
> 
> I hear....crickets....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmgirl6 said:


> To answer your questions, yes I eat meat, I raise my own chickens and eggs, I buy beef locally that is organic, farm raised, and processed in house, and I do not as a rule eat pork (we just don't like it), so I don&#8217;t just &#8220;talk the talk&#8221; I &#8220;walk the walk&#8221;, for more than one reason, partly because I an naive enough to at least try to be a decent person at the top of the food chain as much as I can manage it this modern age, partly because I don&#8217;t like what they feed food animals these days I prefer not to have a hand growing out of my forehead thanks to the steroids and such...
> have already noted in previous posts that I thought other food animals had gotten the short end of the stick as far as how they are transported and handled at slaughter and I think in those cases we have an obligation to make that more necessary experience as humane as possible, just because I like to think and hope we are evolved enough for that to be of concern, and have been pleased to see some real, simple steps taken by caring folks to make that those facilities improve practices. However, as I have said before, I find horses to be in an even more unique role in that, once again, WE DO NOT GENERALLY RAISE THEM FOR FOOD. Horses in this country are raised generally for recreation. While in practice one might claim there is no difference exercising identical slaughter practices for horses as those utilized for cows or chickens (I believe the only difference is the height of the hanging lifts) and that our obligation to them is no different based on the role they play, and that seems to be a pretty small distinction to some folks - but we have, by deliberate design, spent decades breeding and developing them to be companion animals for the most part in this day and age, have we not?, gone to great lengths to make them intelligent and sensitive, responsive to our needs? The dog analogy was excellent, we have not done so with the animals we specifically raise for food. I own horses and cows, chicken and turkeys, and one might argue the food animals I own are probably above average for intelligence and sensitivity due to a large amount of personal interaction; however despite this none of those animals I own, which one would consider "food animals", have the levels of sensitivity, penchant for fear, or difficulty dealing with stress as do the horses, or perceived attachment to my person and their companions. That is just a fact. Raise your voice at my horses, they become agitated; raise your voice at my cows? They might move out of the way, or they may knock you through the fence depending on the mood..every time I go in the pen with my chickens, I get the impression they are sizing me up, deciding how I would taste
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

farmgirl6 said:


> give me the implied contempt for my ânaivetyâ for voicing concern to the horse slaughter transport and slaughter practice as it stands, based on my actual experience with one, (searching for a well loved animal that was stolen for a friend)â¦..âhas anyone else actually visited one of these facilitiesâ?


Actually, I and several other people here have voiced concerns over transport and slaughter practices, but have also repeated this one fact. Laws to change some of the worst of the practices are in place now (have been for many years ) but there has not been the government funding in place to hire people to enforce those laws.

This is where the breakdown is in the system. What most of us who are 'pro-slaughter' keep asking for and suggesting is that rather than pass new laws that make the problem even worse, that the funding be provided to enforce the laws now existing. Enforcement would solve some of the worst of the issues with slaughter. Maybe not ideal but since there seems to be no other reasonable, workable solution to the problem of unwanted horses it does seem to be the best option available now.

Unfortunately, this isn't something that the various humane groups can sell to the people that fund them.

Oh, and to answer your specific question ... yes, I've been to auctions with 'kill pens' for the slaughter horses going to slaughter plants and to slaughter plants as well. Not pleasant certainly, but I've not seen any of the horrific video and photo images that HSUS and PETA keep posting either.


----------



## DamnearaFarm (Sep 27, 2007)

SFM in KY said:


> Actually, I and several other people here have voiced concerns over transport and slaughter practices, but have also repeated this one fact. Laws to change some of the worst of the practices are in place now (have been for many years ) but there has not been the government funding in place to hire people to enforce those laws.
> 
> This is where the breakdown is in the system. What most of us who are 'pro-slaughter' keep asking for and suggesting is that rather than pass new laws that make the problem even worse, that the funding be provided to enforce the laws now existing. Enforcement would solve some of the worst of the issues with slaughter. Maybe not ideal but since there seems to be no other reasonable, workable solution to the problem of unwanted horses it does seem to be the best option available now.
> 
> ...


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

farmgirl6 said:


> When I tend to hear crickets is when I ask those who &#8220;chastise me&#8221;, give me the implied contempt for my &#8220;naivety&#8221; for voicing concern to the horse slaughter transport and slaughter practice as it stands, based on my actual experience with one, (searching for a well loved animal that was stolen for a friend)&#8230;..&#8220;has anyone else actually visited one of these facilities&#8221;?
> 
> I hear....crickets....


Lots of us here work in agriculture. I think I mentioned a friend of mine running a small slaughter facility, yes, I was in it.

You make a big deal out of;WE DO NOT GENERALLY RAISE THEM FOR FOOD.
Ummm, so what? It could be argued that since a horse is far more used to being handled or trailered then any range cow, it is less stressful for them.

As far as their sensitivity, that's an individual thing. I've worked in a dairy and some cows are a lot more high strung then others. Some are more friendly and affectionate then horses, some aren't.
I mourned a little when my favorite dairy cow was shipped, but that's the business.

My pigs top the list for intelligence and sensitivity. They love treats, attention, belly rubs. They know the names that were given to them in jest, while we call our 2 horses in every day for food and after 4 months they are only just figuring out that these words mean them. Nobody's crying over my ugly old pigs.

Now, personally, I'm with you. I only expect an animal to serve me once. Either in life, my horses, dairy animals, brood stock, or in death, my pigs, meat birds, meat rabbits, etc. If an animal of mine has spent it's whole life serving me, even a doe rabbit who has raised for me litter after litter, it gets to retire here. Sometimes, though rarely, I'll even retire someone else's animal, like our old mare.
But, this is my choice, it is what I feel is right for my animals, not something I feel I have the right to impose on everyone else. 

And where I've heard crickets is this, you feel it is impossible for government to regulate slaughter to make it as humane as possible - but trust them to regulate owners, breeders and stables?
Just what kind of regulations do you think will fix this?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmgirl6, I didn't ask you if you ate meat. I asked you if you had any problem with other species going to slaughter. It's great you can and I do too but there's a lot of people that just can't do that.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

lets see...I have already covered some of this, but okay...

I have no objection to any bred and raised for food, going to slaughter that is going to be eaten, as long as it is done a humane fashion. In my humble opinion at this time it has way to go, as well as the manner in which the animals are raised, although thanks to much maligned organizations like the HS ect, it has seen quite a bit of improvement over the years, so I do what I can to not add to the problem with the choices I make. Not imposing my choices on anyone, people asked with strong suggestions I was a hypocrite, and I answered honestly. Wasn't trotting myself as any paragon of virtue, was answering the question. It was asked. 

(And I love pigs. I don't eat pork because I don't particularly like it, and as I told a friend of mine who asked me once "I try not eat something smarter than me when possible, which makes the list small:", I think they are highly intelligent, for the record...I am sure now I am going to get a slew of "oh, so now you think only dumb animals should be eaten...sigh...")

I made one mention of horse facilities perhaps getting registration permits (as I believe they do in most other countries) so that they are on the radar help track and reduce the problem of abuse and neglect particularly in these hard economic times, either at the state or federal level. It may already be required in some states, am curious, so am going to do some research. I remember it being quite strict in the area of Germany in which I lived. I think it will happen eventually anyway; prefer responsible horse owners get in front of it. Again, my opinion. My state requires my beehives be registered, they come in an inspect, ect...will the government do it perfectly? of course not - but we all know there are some places that really should not be doing business...

I never "imposed" anything on anyone, this is a forum for discussion and gave my opinion several pages back on the slaughter industry, even stated it was my opinion and my reasons for having it. Thought that was the reason for this forum. My visit to a facility effected me strongly, But have had to respond to flaming arrows over and over again, the same questions, over and over again, for my opinion. I didn't "quote" or respond to anyone specifically in my original post, didn't reference anyoneâs thoughts, don't quote anyone now except when responding to specific intended "flaming arrows". 
To the question, what would I do about it? I made several suggestions. Some of them incentive type programs to help promote a more humane manner of dealing with unwanted horses. Question asked, question answered. 

Again, I believe horses fall in a different category as other animals, because of the nature of their use in this country, and the lengths we have gone to breed them to be a companion animals. I am unconvinced that slaughter is a viable option for the excess of animals currently unwanted as to me as it is the bad seems to outweigh the good; even when legal in this country, a very small percentage of horses went to slaughter, moral stance not withstanding, if the regulations are truly enforced I do not see how it helps much with the excess population, few horses would be eligible for slaughter in this country for meat purposes for humans anyway; and we no longer use the meat for dog food so only a very small portion goes to zoos. The lame and ill could not be transported by regulation, old or underweight or very young horses would not be financially viable, apparently any animal that has received the normal types of worming, vaccinations, or very standard treatment for injuries would be out. (On the 22nd of this month, a Canadian plant was shut down for violations of these types, I understand). As this is the case, it seems rendering, which does not require the animal be alive when it is sent for processing, would be a much better solution, or as I have already suggested, humane slaughter at auction and cooled or frozen transport of animals to facilities for butchering. My guess is it will result in a new industry of raising additional horses for the sole purpose of slaughter; but I doubt it will be big business as cows apparently are much cheaper and cost effective to raise for meat. 

My daughter reminded me (as she was with me) I was mistaken, the facility we visited was not in Texas, it was in Kentucky, as former military we moved many times over the years. She could not remember the name either; but it served as a dispatch point for animals coming in from auction and going out to slaughter. I believe it was a regulated facility, I saw as I have already stated food and water, they did have a stallion separated, and the animals roughly sorted by size in the pens, so my guess is they did meet the guidelines as they existed fifteen years or so ago and probably does now.I saw no double deckers, My guess was they had upwards of 300 or so horses when I was there, but would be guessing.

I did see, as did my daughter, the types of injuries, most looked fairly recent, that the horse protection agencies have taken in photos and video, I saw no abuse, the people were businesslike. Facial injures quite common, from very minor to quite disturbing. I saw horses down and clearly in distress or dead, at least three in the approximate two hours I was there.. I saw one broken leg and what looked like several dislocations. I brought it to the facilities attention, I heard, though I could not bear to go watch, that a horse was down in one of the newly arrived cattle trucks and they were using a block and tackle to remove it. I saw many what looked like BLM tattoos. And honestly, what type of person would I be if I didnât have serious misgivings about the horse slaughter industry after seeing this?


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

farmgirl6 said:


> Again, I believe horses fall in a different category as other animals, because of the nature of their use in this country, and the lengths we have gone to breed them to be *a companion animal*.


I think this one statement probably pretty much defines the reason that your point of view and the point of view you see from the majority of people on this board are at opposite ends of the issue here and I suspect that is absolutely not going to change.

You see horses as a companion animal. I don't understand that viewpoint, but I certainly believe that you are entitled to that viewpoint.

The majority of people here ... and probably the majority of professional farmers, ranchers and horse breeders ... view horses as livestock. This makes a major difference in how we view the question of *disposal* of excess animals, whether they are simply unwanted, injured, unsound or old.

Unfortunately, I think this is just one of those situations where all you can do is agree to disagree ... I'm not going to convince you that your view of a horse as a companion animal is wrong ... you're not going to convince me that my view of a horse as livestock and a working animal is wrong. I think the best people can do in this situation is to agree that there is a difference of opinion that isn't going to change on either side and remain polite ... and not impose *our* point of view on someone who doesn't believe as we do.


----------



## levi1739 (Jul 25, 2003)

Horses are neither pets or lifestock. They are a mammal and a living creature that should be treated with the same respect as any living creature deserves, regardless of how they are used after death.

I'm not particuarily concerned with the slaughter issue since it has no effect on my own horses. Though horses on the big ranches might be considered livestock I doubt that you will find that to be true in most places in the eastern states. Actually the only place I've ever heard them consistantly refered to as livestock is on this forum though I do hear the term stock horses quite a bit.


Have fun, be safe

Jack


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The problem is when (not if) a group of people get together to sign a petition, contact their representives, etc. in order to change the status of horses from livestock to companion and I'd guess most have never, nor will ever have actually owned a horse, but they're so noble and pretty!  Ten years ago I would have sworn up and down that horse slaughter would never be banned, making horses companion animals can happen quite easily. Of course, the horses will suffer but the defenders will feel good about themselves and that's really all they wanted anyway.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

levi1739 said:


> Horses are neither pets or lifestock. They are a mammal and a living creature that should be treated with the same respect as any living creature deserves, regardless of how they are used after death.
> 
> I'm not particuarily concerned with the slaughter issue since it has no effect on my own horses. Though horses on the big ranches might be considered livestock I doubt that you will find that to be true in most places in the eastern states. Actually the only place I've ever heard them consistantly refered to as livestock is on this forum though I do hear the term stock horses quite a bit.
> 
> ...


I'm about as east as you can get and most of the horse people I know consider their horses to be livestock. We're country people who keep horses and other livestock on our own farms, it could be very different if you asked people who live in cities or towns.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

One problem I have is the insistent proposal that we have regulation of breeders and owners in an attempt to control the horse population. Anyone that deals with livestock is very aware of the USDA's attempts to over regulate the breeding of livestock to the detriment of small farmers. Regulating horse breeding the way suggested will promote more attempts to regulate small farmers and family homesteads out of existence. I know I'm really touchy regarding this, because it threatens my way of life. There has been a drive to pass regulations supposedly to track disease of livestock that would actually give the government a free pass to come and destroy anyone's livestock if someone isn't happy with a farmer - which has already happened and would get worse. 

There are a lot of implications to the regulation of breeding horses that go way past even the slaughter of horses. There is a battle going on right now between small farmers (and ranchers) and the US government. That battle is one front of the loss of personal freedom in this country. 

Although I am troubled by how horse slaughter comes down and with practices and the knowledge that there are bad experiences, I am more troubled by how tyranny is going forward against the people of this country and how we live our lives. It is not going to help the horses to accept greater and greater loss of freedom our selves, it will let those that don't care have more control over those that do. Big business and big government doesn't care about humane slaughter as much as we do, but regulations of breeding any livestock or even companion animals will favor big business and big government, because the big government is (basically) paid off by the big business and horses will be just a small part of the picture. 

Of course I don't want to see horses harmed or mistreated. Of course your trip to the holding facility was awful. However, it is awful to have horses starving because people can't afford to feed them and no one will (or can) take them or afford to put them down. I'd rather see them killed, even at a slaughter house. At least the slaughter house is fast. I know you can't just go somewhere and see the horses suffer outside of slaughter house situations, but it happens and the members of this forum see it happen.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

SFM in KY said:


> I think this one statement probably pretty much defines the reason that your point of view and the point of view you see from the majority of people on this board are at opposite ends of the issue here and I suspect that is absolutely not going to change.
> 
> You see horses as a companion animal. I don't understand that viewpoint, but I certainly believe that you are entitled to that viewpoint.
> 
> ...


Thanks SFM, I quite agree, peoples different experience shape their veiwpoints for sure.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

levi1739 said:


> Horses are neither pets or lifestock. They are a mammal and a living creature that should be treated with the same respect as any living creature deserves, regardless of how they are used after death.
> 
> I'm not particuarily concerned with the slaughter issue since it has no effect on my own horses. Though horses on the big ranches might be considered livestock I doubt that you will find that to be true in most places in the eastern states. Actually the only place I've ever heard them consistantly refered to as livestock is on this forum though I do hear the term stock horses quite a bit.
> 
> ...


Thats funny Jack, have had the same experience as far as how they are viewed where I have lived, even by the big breeding facilities in Kentucky and such, had never heard them referred to as "livestock" in the sense I think about it, but I think as it is a homesteading site and not specifically a "horse owner" site per sey, folks are more likely here to be more substance farming folks, homesteaders, and less pure hobbiests as far as horse keeping which is completely understandable. Doesn't mean they don't care for and value their horses as much as the hobbiest, just a different viewpoint and experiences.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

And where I've heard crickets is this, you feel it is impossible for government to regulate slaughter to make it as humane as possible - but trust them to regulate owners, breeders and stables?
Just what kind of regulations do you think will fix this?[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, I was responding to the remarks that "the government can't regulate anything" combined with "we need not worry about the slaughter industry because the government regulates it", was responding the duality of that argument-and I believe with another poster that is has alot to do with funding, Ben Frank drives the train on any program.

I don't think the government does much well - and what has become an insinuation that I want the government to dictate to everyone what or who they can breed stems from a suggestion I made that horse facilities, not just breeding facilities, but riding stables, rescues for sure, have a license system to help keep some more unsavory places on the radar. The bee folks here didn't like it when the state found the level of honey bees critical short and started making you register your hives and get them inspected, that turned out to be a good thing, they have really helped novice beekeepers keep the bees healthy and make sure we know if the african bees have come into your area - the rep caught a case of virosa mites in one of my hives I would havemissed from being new...Folks disagree, I respect that. It seemed to work quite well when I was in Germany (I do not know if it was just the area in Frankfurt where we lived of if that is National). Of course over there I got the impression you could get hammered pretty good for about any type of neglect or abuse, big time.


----------



## farmgirl6 (May 20, 2011)

You make a big deal out of;WE DO NOT GENERALLY RAISE THEM FOR FOOD.
Ummm, so what? It could be argued that since a horse is far more used to being handled or trailered then any range cow, it is less stressful for them.

I thoughts are, since we don't raise them for food, we generally breed them for very different reasons, to include intelligence and sensitivity and for the most part for recreational purposes, not for fat content and body mass index for the plate (although all of my animals would be good eating in a pinch as they are overfed for sure it just seems, I dunno, wrong, can't even make the argument that is it a necessary evil if we want breakfast but that is just my opinion

and I love pigs..I think the average pig is smarter than most people I know my husband has a very strict "no pig" rule on my farm tho


----------

