Good morning sir. I am really hoping that this is a good email address for you and that it reaches you. I am the lead humane investigator for the Humane Society of North Texas. I am sure you will receive a wonderful response to your article in the September issue of EQUUS, and I wanted to take the time to personally thank you for such a well written look into this very controversial issue in Texas. I was an animal control officer in Indiana for about 6 years before moving to Texas almost 3 years ago, and the issues of horse cruelty and neglect were no where near the numbers that are right here in horse country.

 Hello, tlrobertshsnt ~ I couldn't agree with you more. You are 100% on the mark, as was the editorial. If we'd had the guts to just take slaughter completely off the table long ago, I'm sure we would have come up with  better solutions by now because we would have had no choice. As long as people are willing to consider slaughter a viable solution to "unwanted" horses, it will always be with us. At least until the EU stops accepting our contaminated horses for comsumption by their countrymen.

I come from Texas, but have lived in Indiana since 1992. I was fighting the slaughter issue there. At that time, horses were being stolen right out of their stalls to be taken accross the state line, auctioned to killer buyers, then brought back to Bel-Tex or Dallas Crown for slaughter. A horse was stolen out of the stall next to mine - my horse had a freeze brand and my friend's did not. Several other horses were taken as well, and though we tried and tried, we never recovered any of them.

Sounds as if you a doing a wonderful job down there. Thank you so much for all that you are doing.

Suzanne Moore

Thanks so much, Suzanne! Ironically enough, I lived in Indiana my whole life until 3 years ago....although the issue was not as publicized in my hometown, I always knew it was an issue. I appreciate hearing other people that are on the 'same page'...helps me to continue on our mission to end the suffering of these animals.

Kindest Regards,

Tammy 

I hesitated reading this post as I always seem to spend the next 2 weeks frustrated and angry at people's ignorance about this issue. I deplore the argument that slaughter is humane and needed. I think that pro-slaughter people want to believe it so that they can justify using it when they don't feel like caring for an older or injured horse. Neglect and abuse will always be part of our world. It doesn't have anything to do with a lack of means or options. Some people are just mean and some just don't care.

First off let me say I am not a slaughter advocate.  I am so tired of these articles that have people complaining of our circumstances yet no one writes any articles about solutions to our problems.  Mr. DiBendedictics wrote a great article showcasing the reasons we shouldn't eat horses, the American betrayl of the horse, the question of cruelty, and so on and so on. Although not mentioning more than a sentence or two of solutions.  Right now the only solution to the problem is unfortunatly the slaughter plants. I dont' like it one bit either.

 COME ON EQUUS HOW ABOUT EMPLOYING AN AUTHOR WHO HAS SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM NOT SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO COMPLAIN HOW BAD THINGS ARE!

 How about an article on why we should only have approved stallions? (Like the Dutch Fresians have employed).  Or a law that every horse that is not approved MUST be castrated? The other end is controlling mares that produce poor characteristics?  How about an article on why there should only be licensed breeders?   How many horses would a program like this eliminate from our population without killing a single horse? But we would never dare write on an article like this would we? It infringes our American right to breed as many horses as we want. The problem is with us.  We are the problem. We are going to have to give up some of our freedoms to a controlled market of horses.  No more breeding just so little susie can have a baby to "grow up with".

Brandt23: I could not agree with you more. You propose many good solutions to the problem. And, indirectly, that's what the article is saying: There are solutions out there besides slaughter. And don't think pro-slaughter people haven't thought of them or don't know they exist. But, as you also correctly state, they hide those solutions behind a smoke screen of "the necessity of slaughter" as the only solution. They talk about all the unwanted horses. They talk about the rise in cruelty resulting from the loss of the slaughter option. They talk about not violating the cultural norms of others by telling them they can't eat our horses. On and on.

Two years ago EQUUS printed a pro-slaughter article that enumerated all of those reasons for continuing slaughter. This article was meant to respond to that. It was not meant to propose solutions but to make a case for the need to get slaughter off the table in order to implement many good solutions such as the ones you propose. As long as slaughter is offered, you can propose solutions all you want but, as the article says, they will only result in token gestures that will not solve the problem. Read the article again and notice that it says only when there is a necessity to implement alternative solutions will they happen. Slaughter removes that necessity so we can keep conducting business as usual. And, as you also correctly point out, it's all about money that will be lost; it's not (as the article says) about the welfare of the horse.    

I agree with your train of thought regarding solutions for "unwanted" horses.  I have stated before that a lot of the numbers could be reduced by having regulations for the breeding of animals.  Too often I have met people who seem to think that they can produce the next world beater by breeding a grade mare from an auction with an unregistered stud down the road.  I don't understand it.  It is not even as though they are breeding for a specific discipline.

 However, in addition to all the unwanted horses that show up at auctions, there are currently thousands of horses just sitting in government holding pens because  public rangelands have their quoto of wild horses.  Many tamed mustangs I've seen offered from a local facility have been born in captivity.  Yet the government institutions in charge of them will not consider using a hormonal contraceptive to curb the numbers of wild horses on the range.  If official agencies cannot responsibly manage and reduce the number of animals, how can one expect private citizens to?  The most ecologically sound way to manage wild horse numbers would be to reintroduce a predator, a cougar or wolf pack.  I know that would be extremely unpopular with ranchers and horse lovers alike.  But, as you noted, few people dare to come up with solutions to the problem.  Possibly because the culture at large just will not tolerate the truth.

 In all of human history, the equine has had value. Meat, hide, hair, bone, work horse, status symbol, pet - the human/equine interface stretches back millenia.. For the first time in history, the abandoned, unwanted, damaged equine has no intrinsic value. This is very new territory for humans and the consequences, both planned and unplanned, are realities in the world today.  Unlike dogs and cats, there are virtually no resources to deal with unwanted equines.  In a perfect world there would be no unwanted equines, just like there would be no unwanted dogs or cat either.  Because of the size and costs of equines, small animal solutions will not work. Anyone who cares enough to read these magazines, post this comments is aware of the issues. 

 Slaughter was the true bottom line of the equine road, insuring a final value to the horse.  It was both a solution and a cause of the problem. Horses are in a sad twilight between livestock and pet. Treating them as livestock was the historical solution. Like I said, this is very new territory for everyone.   My solution was never to breed equines, but then again I never bred my cats or dogs or myself for that matter.  If everyone took that approach we would all be extinct in decades.  That said, I do what I personally can to help:  I have 6 equines, 7 canines, 3 felines all rescues and all with lifetime homes. 

 One writer in one magazine (I read them all and cannot remember if it was Equus or not) questioned the food value of the equine in a world of hungry people.  I wish everyone would take responsibility for a life they create, be it human, pet or livestock.  That would be a perfect world, and everyone knows it isn't. The ignorant will never know or care about the results of their actions.  The arrogant don't care.  Both contribute to statistics like "the 2009 Thoroughbred foal crop is 8% less this year."  That is still WAY too many foals and that is just one breed and a very elite breed.

 Clouding up the issue is the debate between conservation and preservation.  Conservation is good stewardship, like Ducks Unlimited; preservation is less realistic, like the BLM solution to wild equines.  I am a historian and a lifetime horse lover.  This is truly new territory for which I have no answers, just some passing comments to remind people how intimate and ultimate the decisions we each make become.  Think wisely, if you can.  

"All of civilization is built on the bones of a horse"  I wish I could remember who said that, but it is very appropriate.  It's fascinating to look at the ways in which the horse has influenced history and allowed us to develop.  We owe the horse a lot and it would be a shame if it were to disappear altogether.  Today, there is no danger of it disappearing but the horse is fast losing a place in human society.  It will be the lack of people with horse knowledge and skill and the dearth of truly well-trained and reliable equines to teach the next generation that will really contribute to the disappearance of a horse culture in North America.  The equines that are truly valuable to us are the ones children and beginners can learn with and get that thrill of galloping across a meadow on horseback.  I was lucky to have that.  For the generation before me it was easy to find a safe well-trained animal.  Not anymore.  The sad reality is that slaughterhouses are full of young animals who have the potential to be that but whose owners did not have the knowledge and the time to develop it.  All the kindness and good intentions in the world will not help.

 There are solutions to the problem of overabundance, it requires political will and perhaps a rethinking of our priorities.  And perhaps our tastes as well.  At the risk of condemnation and derision, I will note here that most horse cultures of the past and of today (the Mongolians, Icelanders, North American Indians) both relied on their horses and ate them as well, in a similar fashion as the early settlers in America used oxen to plow fields and pull carts, but ate beef and drank milk.  I'm sure many of them were sentimental about the oxen they worked with, and may not have eaten an individual they were particularly attached to.  But, "waste was a sin" as many believed.  That is a conviction that should be making a comeback.  As long as issues of food safetey and humane destruction are addressed I don't believe there should be any controversy about the issue whatever.

"All of civilization was built from the BONES of a horse?" I also wish you could find who said that. The way I heard it is that all of civilization was built from the BACK of a horse. I do know that ancient civilizations used horse bones to curse the dead, or to enhance the curse. The Vikings beheaded a horse, set the skull on a pole, and pointed it in the direction of the intended victim. That was their culture. We are in a very different time and different culture. We have an abundance of cattle, pigs, sheep, and chickens to eat. The hard times of yesteryear are not upon us. But even then, most of them did not eat their dogs which held the same sentimental value. And I'm sure many of them did not eat their horses as long as they had oxen and cows, etc., to eat. If it meant starvation, of course they did eat both dog and horse. The Native Americans routinely ate their dogs. Are we going to go back and use all of these people as standards for our culture? Why do people keep pointing to other cultures and civilizations? We're not them.

"Political will and perhpas a rethinking of our priorities" is exactly what we need. But it won't happen as long as slaughter is a convenient dumping ground for our "waste." The inherent cruelty of slaughter-in-mass will continue. What you and others are really asking for is a change in the American culture. Carrying your arguments out to their logical conclusion says Americans should get over the value they place on the horse-as-horse and begin treating them as food animals for ourselves and not just for foreigners, just as we do many other animals. To carry it even further, we should adopt the "waste is sin" maxim and eat dogs and cats. Some things and animals are considered valuable for their own sake and not simply for their utilitarian value.            

 Here here, ridealong. Well said!!

An Intel engineer working on hardening electronics suggested one possible scenario for the resurgence of horses in our society.  The particulars of his work are classified, but it deals with countering a possible nuclear EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack.  He said to me, "If we're attacked, all the electronics in cars would be fried.  You'll be the only ones (horse owners) with transport".  (I suppose old vehicles with no "Check Engine" lights would also be impervious to EMP.  They'd be useful as long as fuel can be pumped.)

It may not be long before that might happen.  At that point, I suspect there would be very few pasture pets.

As important as horses could once more become.  Slaughter would probably be the sentence for those horses that maim or kill.  Euthanasia wouldn't offer sufficient retribution.