Comments on: Equine-Related Legislation Causes Controversy around the Country

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:41:02 +0000

I also agree with CanAmFam. If slaughter is thriving just as much as ever, there is just no way that a non-existent lack of the slaughter option can be blamed for an “excess” of horses. Massive over breeding by the big breed associations coupled with unprecedented owner irresponsibility – these are the problems. Breeders are responsible for the horses they breed, and owners are responsible for the horses they buy. Period.
However, there are a couple of things that weren’t even mentioned. First, I don’t believe in-state inspectors are ever going to qualify horse meat to be sold for human consumption. The 2008 Farm Bill specifically names the animals that MAY be able to be sold in intrastate commerce without Federal Inspection, and horses are NOT on the list. Besides, who is going to buy the poisonous meat within the US? No market here.
There is NO way to legally force independent rescues take on horses unless they receive support via tax money. Otherwise, legislators have NO such power. They call this “unconstitutional.” Ever hear of that?
For that matter, you people ever hear of veterinarian administered euthanasia? If you have an old, sick, crippled or dangerous horse, THIS is your responsibility. Besides, the kill buyers are NOT interested in old skinny, sick horses. Attend an auction and see which horses they bid on. Idiotic!
The most telling of all is they do not mention the problem of drug residues in American horses. If you own a horse – if you don’t own a horse, go to a store that sells horse supplies – and look at how many of the labels on the stuff you use almost daily carry this warning: NOT FOR USE IN HORSES INTENDED FOR FOOD. This means if a horse has EVER been exposed to this substance they are barred from the human food chain permanently. NO withdrawal period, no nothing – they are OUT. Bute, ivermectin, fly spray… Just the tip of the iceberg. Now, horse eaters, do you plan to knowingly sell adulterated meat to other people?
http://www.box.net/shared/smhn2fmdeb
And yes, I DO own horses and have for over 30 years.

By: Jan

Jan — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:59:08 +0000

I am taking this comment and offering it as mine. I share this sentiment and it is so simple to see that it blows my mind that others do not reduce it to the simplist equation as this poster did. It is my view and well stated.
Thanks CanAmFam, Monterey, MA
Coming from an analyst background, I’m a stickler for cause and effect. And this why the argument that we need slaughter to prevent horse neglect fails. Today you can take your horse to auctions all over the country and sell to kill buyers. There’s NOTHING stopping ANYONE from sending their horses to slaughter. And yet we’re seeing increased levels of neglect and surrender. But I thought slaughter prevented that????
So what can we logically assume? We can assume that people who neglect or surrender their horses don’t see slaughter as an option! We can also assume, since slaughter is still an option, and the same number of US horses are being slaughtered today as we used to slaughter here when the US plants were open, that increases in neglect and surrender ARE NOT RELATED TO CLOSING THE US PLANTS. In fact, what it DOES indicate is that the effect of slaughter – removing 100K horses per year from the market – has little to no effect on the overall horse market!
The economy is what has the greatest effect on the market – like all other markets for non-essential (luxury) goods, the horse market has taken a massive hit. Now UNLIKE other markets, where perhaps the businesspeople are more adept and they reduce or stop production, many of our horse breeders continue to churn out horses and their registries continue to encourage lottery style breeding – and thereby prolonging the problems facing the U.S. horse market. Arguably, slaughter is a barbaric solution that encourages breeders of poor quality stock and an irresponsible attitude from horse owners, that horses are disposable. Once and for all, we need to think rationally and come up with real solutions that actually ADDRESS the problem of at-risk horses – NOT prolong it, like slaughter!
CanAmFam, Monterey, MA
Posted: 2/11/2011 6:42:47 PM

By: Heidi

Heidi — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:52:08 +0000

Slaughter will not fix anything and in reading the things people say I wonder are they really thinking? Is this about horses or money? Yes horses cost money. I think when you decide to breed horses you need to be responsible. I see all these people saying they are stuck with horses that are suffering, no good or unwanted. If it is such an issue there is this thing called a shot gun learn how to use it. I am sure that statement will get people going but I have been able to see both humane euthanasia and a gun shot and if given the choice would choose the gun over the other only if the person doing it knew what they were doing. I think it would help if the BLM would quit rounding up horses that don’t need to be. The solution to the too many horses issue has many faucets.

By: Lynn

Lynn — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:25:04 +0000

I still say promote responsible breeding not fix the problem after it’s too late

By: CanAmFam

CanAmFam — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:42:48 +0000

Coming from an analyst background, I’m a stickler for cause and effect. And this why the argument that we need slaughter to prevent horse neglect fails. Today you can take your horse to auctions all over the country and sell to kill buyers. There’s NOTHING stopping ANYONE from sending their horses to slaughter. And yet we’re seeing increased levels of neglect and surrender. But I thought slaughter prevented that????
So what can we logically assume? We can assume that people who neglect or surrender their horses don’t see slaughter as an option! We can also assume, since slaughter is still an option, and the same number of US horses are being slaughtered today as we used to slaughter here when the US plants were open, that increases in neglect and surrender ARE NOT RELATED TO CLOSING THE US PLANTS. In fact, what it DOES indicate is that the effect of slaughter – removing 100K horses per year from the market – has little to no effect on the overall horse market!
The economy is what has the greatest effect on the market – like all other markets for non-essential (luxury) goods, the horse market has taken a massive hit. Now UNLIKE other markets, where perhaps the businesspeople are more adept and they reduce or stop production, many of our horse breeders continue to churn out horses and their registries continue to encourage lottery style breeding – and thereby prolonging the problems facing the U.S. horse market. Arguably, slaughter is a barbaric solution that encourages breeders of poor quality stock and an irresponsible attitude from horse owners, that horses are disposable. Once and for all, we need to think rationally and come up with real solutions that actually ADDRESS the problem of at-risk horses – NOT prolong it, like slaughter!

By: Ottis Jean

Ottis Jean — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:41:54 +0000

I agree with Nebraska’s Senator Larson wanting to bring horse slaughter to his state. By having state inspectors instead of federal, Nebraska would have control of all processing and exports. This should be happening in all states. I am a horse breeder and I love my horses and probably would never send one to slaughter, but slaughter should be an option to legally dispose of unwanted animals. It would also be a means of creating jobs and making money for those directly involved in both the horse industry and the processing business. Horses are just animals like cattle, sheep, swine, poultry and goats. There are processing plants for these animals so why not for horses?

By: Susan

Susan — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:13:47 +0000

Trail rider has such a good point! It’s a lose/lose situation!
I used to believe in “no kill” everything. But as I learn the harsh reality of what is going on in the horse world today, I see that lots of people want to say it’s inhumane to send a horse to slaughter, but I don’t see them shelling out millions upon millions to help with these horses well-being either. Yes there should be more exacting standards. Yes there should be help for these horses, BUT THERE ISN’T!!! And yes there should be a way to end a life of a horse that is in such a terrible state (physically OR MENTALLY) that no one wants to deal with it or help it! Horses are a dime a dozen these days, even registered animals ARE being given away for free because their owners cannot afford them!!!!
I hate this topic, but it won’t ever go away!!!

By: trail rider

trail rider — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:28:17 +0000

YOU CANT PLEASE EVERYONE, BUT YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT’S RIGHT AND WHAT’S BEST FOR THE ENTIRE EQUINE INDUSTRY. SUCH AS A FEW THINGS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, STOP BACKYARD BREEDERS. PUT STANDARDS AND QUALIFICATIONS ON THE HORSES THAT PEOPLE WANT TO BREED, (LIKE THE FRIESIANS), AND IF THEY DONT PASS “INSPECTION” CUT ‘EM. AND DONT LET THE MARES BE BRED EITHER, IF THEY DONT PASS “INSPECTION” AS WELL.
THE COST OF FOOD AND CARE IS OUTRAGEOUS, AND THERE ARE THOSE OUT THERE WHO WILL LET THEM STARVE OR NOT GET FARRIER WORK, OR SEE THE VET, THAN PAY FOR WHAT THEY NEED. DO YOU REALLY THINK ITS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE HORSE WHO IS SO LAME WITH NAVICULAR TO LET IT SUFFER? OR ONE WHO HAS HAD A BAD EXPERIENCE, WITH LETS SAY MEN, THAT IT INJURES ANY MAN IT COMES INTO CONTACT WITH OUT OF PAST EVENTS, EVEN IF THAT MAN DID NOTHING TO IT? OR A BAD BITER, OR ONE THAT REARS CONSTANTLY TO TRY TO AVOID BEING RIDDEN WITH NOTHING PHYSICAL WRONG WITH IT, AND FLIP OVER AND INJURE ITS RIDER? DO YOU WANT A HORSE LIKE THAT? NOPE, AND NEITHER DO I.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, CATTLE & SWINE RANCHES (AND CHICKEN FARMS) BREED JUST TO BUTCHER. ONLY TO BUTCHER FOR FOOD! AT LEAST IN THE EQUINE INDUSTRY, HORSES ARE BORN TO BE MORE, THAN JUST FOOD. LET’S FACE IT, SOME THAT ARE BORN JUST ARENT GOOD ONES FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, SO THEY SHOULD BE “RID” OF. I KNOW ITS HARD TO SWALLOW. BUT WAKE UP PEOPLE AND SMELL THE ROSES!! DO WE WANT THE HORSE INDUSTRY TO CONTINUE BEING IN A SLUMP? I AGREE TOTALLY WITH ROCHERA FROM MN. WE NEED SLAUGHTER, IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. IT IS A NECCESSARY EVIL. SO LIKE I SAID BEFORE PEOPLE, ITS A LOSE/LOSE SITUATION. SO DEAL WITH IT.

By: Tammy

Tammy — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:56:02 +0000

I truly believe that there needs to be regulations on breeding horses not fit to breed. Take into account the Friesian breed. They are very particular on what horses meet their breeding regulations to be able to breed. More people need to be contious of what they are breeding. This would cut down on some of the horses that arean’t wanted. It isn’t the horses fault its the people who are at fault for over breeding. Unfortunately there are non horse people out there making decisions about what we horse people should do with our horses. We need to speak up and be more active and be contious of what is being produced.

By: Galadriel

Galadriel — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 23:50:22 +0000

I would guess that this 70% doesn’t own horses too.