Frizzle:

Your claim that horse owners giving their horses bute is equivalent to sending them to slaughter is completely out of line. Your reasoning is skewed and fallacious, to say the least. I will say, you are skilled at sophistry - but that is definitely not a compliment.

A lead bullet properly placed would end a horse's life.  A chemical bullet (carcinogen) can also shorten a horse's life with attending discomforts.

Anyone is free to choose to administer a known carcinogen.  If the benefits far outweigh the disadvantage, then why not?  It only takes one mutation, of the millions of mutations caused by the carcinogen, to start a cancerous growth.  The rest is expelled by the body's defenses, hence the EUs 6 month withholding.  Six months without additional dosing seems to be sufficient to have the meat fit for human consumption.

A carcinogen, as you mentioned, has a small probability, like playing russian roulette with a million chambered pistol.  Point is, one still chooses to shoot the horse.

If you review my very first post on this subject, you'll see that my position hasn't changed.  It's free a choice. 

GF, I think you need to go back to the beginning of this thread and read the whole thing all the way through...very slowly. Then go back and read it at least once more, all the way through. Everything that you have said has been discredited, proven wrong, etc. I guess a high IQ isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Gypsy fly, that 6 month withholding is only the beginning.  Within 3 years, the EU will REQUIRE all horses slaughtered for export to the EU to have a PASSPORT similar to the system they use over there.  The passport will correspond with a unique, permenent ID given to each horse (can you say hello NAIS), and will document whether or not that horse is declared for slaughter OR NOT, and any medications the horse has been given, when and at what dosage throughout it's lifetime.  I believe this declaration must be made prior to a horse reaching 6 months of age.  As per EU regulations, once a banned substance has been administered to the horse, of which bute is one, that horse can never be slaughtered for export to the EU.  Period.  That is why I will make sure all of my horses have had at least one dose of bute.  Bute is carcinogenic to people, not horses.  While no drug is without side effects, bute is relatively safe when given in proper dosages for an appropriate period of time to horses.  This is not unusual.  People take tylenol routinely without ill effect, yet tylenol is highly toxic and can be fatal to cats.

I abhor the thought of slaughtering any horse, and I find anyone heartless enough to commit this cruelty detestable.  These people who betray horses in this way are the bottom feeders of the horse industry.  Again, slaughter is not about animal welfare - it's about killing for profit while betraying an animal that has served mankind faithfully.  For now, it is your right to send your horse to a horrific death that is slaughter.  While I hope and pray and fight every day to end horse slaughter, if it is not to end, then those of us who don't want horses we have bred, raised, trained, and/or owned going to slaughter will demand a means to protect our horses from this brutality.  Slaughter is hurting the horse industry more than anything else.  I am confident that it will end, hopefully sooner rather than later.

mousemistresz:

I abhor the thought of slaughtering any horse, and I find anyone heartless enough to commit this cruelty detestable.  These people who betray horses in this way are the bottom feeders of the horse industry.  Again, slaughter is not about animal welfare - it's about killing for profit while betraying an animal that has served mankind faithfully.  For now, it is your right to send your horse to a horrific death that is slaughter.  While I hope and pray and fight every day to end horse slaughter, if it is not to end, then those of us who don't want horses we have bred, raised, trained, and/or owned going to slaughter will demand a means to protect our horses from this brutality.  Slaughter is hurting the horse industry more than anything else.  I am confident that it will end, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Well said.  More power to you.

A few years ago In the central Kentucky town where I live, someone called the Humane Society to report buzzards circling over a field. When police and Humane Society workers entered the farm, they found a young foal standing by a mare that had starved to death. The owners said, "We ran out of feed." Photos of the emaciated mare were anguishing to look at.

This is not an isolated occurrence in Kentucky, the center of the horse industry, or in other states. Numbers of neglected and starving horses continue to be confiscated by officials all over the country. If sending horses to slaughter seems wrong to you, I hope you can explain why slow starvation is a better choice than a quick death for these horses. It seems impossible to force owners to provide responsible care for their animals. Slaughter may not be a perfect solution, but in my opinion, it is the best and most immediate solution to prevent suffering. If someone wants to eat the meat after the horse has been slaughtered, why is that anyone else's concern? 

I do not think that slaughter or "slow starvation" are the answer to the overpopulation problem. What kind of owners say "We ran out of feed." Did they try to get help before the mare starved to death? There are resources out there. Why would someone who can not take care of a horse think it would be a good idea to breed one? I also do not believe it has been proven anywhere that slaughter "prevent suffering".

Kate Bishop:

If sending horses to slaughter seems wrong to you, I hope you can explain why slow starvation is a better choice than a quick death for these horses. It seems impossible to force owners to provide responsible care for their animals. Slaughter may not be a perfect solution, but in my opinion, it is the best and most immediate solution to prevent suffering. If someone wants to eat the meat after the horse has been slaughtered, why is that anyone else's concern? 

There is one huge problem with your assertion.  We had slaughter when that happened and we have it now!  That happened and continues to happen despite slaughter.  Clearly that owner did not avail themselves of the slaughter option.  Slaughter is not stopping this and if you look at statistics for slaughter and neglect you will see it has never had any impact what-so-ever on solving the problem.

 John Holland

Equine Welfare Alliance

 Mr. Holland, well said! 

Why would it make any difference to these people if slaughter was an option or not?  They had the option of finding a new home for their horse or taking it to an auction and they chose the coward's way out by letting the horse starve to death.  People who abuse animals will continue to do so; it is in their nature.  Taking away the slaughter option is NOT going to turn peaceful, law abiding citizens into abusive psychopaths!

elm7904:

Why would someone who can not take care of a horse think it would be a good idea to breed one?

Excellent point, elm. Not only was this person neglecting the horse (s)he already owned, but (s)he was also contributing to the horse overpopulation problem by creating yet another foal. I would bet good money that the foal was unregistered and of less-than-stellar parentage. Then, surprise, surprise, nobody wants to buy said foal...so let's just stop feeding it.

 What we really need to do is cut down on the breeding of poor-quality horses in this country, particulary with all the backyard breeders who will breed anything-with-testicles to anything-with-a-uterus. Unfortunately, people seem to think that it's their "right" to create thousands of unwanted animals; they then bury their heads in the sand and refuse to think of what will happen to those lives they created.

Frizzle:

Unfortunately, people seem to think that it's their "right" to create thousands of unwanted animals; they then bury their heads in the sand and refuse to think of what will happen to those lives they created.

If it happens to children, it'll happen to animals.

I am currently doing a semester in an alternative high school.  We have a lot of throw away kids here.  We've got psychologist, social workers and a lot of other community resources dedicated to keeping these kids in school.  I'm here to figure out how computers might interest them and pursue any avenues of interest.

Everyone teaching here is a "primary reporter" of child abuse.  You could almost put every student here in some category of abuse.

I'm new to this environment and consider it a great challenge to answer to the grant requirements and goals.  Glad that I am among wonderful professionals doing the same.

After a few days here, my hope is that this generation does better for the next.  The previous generation ought to be "spayed or neutered".

gypsy fly:

After a few days here, my hope is that this generation does better for the next.  The previous generation ought to be "spayed or neutered".

Unfortunately, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Brutality, abuse, and neglect have always been prevelant in society, towards both humans and animals. Even though it's daunting to think about the huge amount of work that needs to be done, we need to do everything that we possibly can.

It has been proven again and again:  Slaughter does not prevent abuse, on the contrary, it hides, rewards, and perpetuates it.

Just think about this for a moment.  IF slaughter prevented abuse, then why do we have horses being reported as starving and neglected right now and in the past?  The largest case of equine abuse occurred in 2005 while the US plants were still operatin.  Anyone who wants to send a horse to slaughter can still do so.  Slaughter has not stopped.  More horses are being slaughtered in Canada and Mexico than in the US, but the bottom line is that they are still being slaughtered at the same numbers, maybe a little higher.

This is why we need to pass HR503 and S.727.  We also need to close any loopholes which may exist in these bills that would allow slaughter to continue under false pretenses.  We need to give our American horses the protection they have earned and deserve.  We owe them no less.

I don't have the magazine article in front of me.  I do remember, Rev DiBenedictis noting the old saying along the lines of "sending to the glue factory".

What exactly did that mean, "glue factory"?  Was there actually an adhesive product made out of horses?  Or did it mean the rendering plant? 

I ought to be old enough to know this, but I haven't been in that loop.  A little enlightenment would be appreciated.

By the same token, what other things were horses that were slaughtered in US plants made into (aside from "for human consumption")?

From what I've read horses' bones were boiled to remove the collagen, which is a sticky protein and can hold things together. This was also the case with other animals and not just horses. Now glue is chemically based and the saying is just a way of stating the horse is no longer earning his keep and is past his prime.   

gypsy fly:

What exactly did that mean, "glue factory"?  Was there actually an adhesive product made out of horses?  Or did it mean the rendering plant? 

Rendering plants take protein and fat sources ranging from used cooking grease to dead animals and "render" it down into several products including lard and other fat based products.  One of the byproducts of rendering plants is protiens used in some glues. 

This is of course different than slaughter although slaughter plants commonly send certain waste to rendering.  Nobody slaughters animals for the purposes of producing these products (it would not be profitable), so the term is a misnomer. 

The Dallas Crown plant and the Cavel plant started sending their blood for rendering after they got in lots of trouble for sewer violations.  We don't know why this did not stop the violations and suspect the renderers might have refused to keep taking it for some reason because the violations continued.  Blood is normally used to make a product called "blood meal" used in animal feeds (not glue). Blood disposal is a universal problem with horse slaughter plants both because a horse has over twice the volume per pound of body weight as a cow and because anti-biotics present in these horses have caused the processing systems to fail by killing the bacteris in the tanks.

John Holland