“The greatest deterrent
to freedom are men and women of zeal, well-meaning, but
without knowledge or understanding.”
~Justice Louis Brandeis~

"People are so quick to defend their own agendas, but they so often fail to realize we must protect the rights of all if we are to continue to have any rights of our own."
~Jenqu~

Ranch meaning, in general, any real world dwelling probably not involving full care board. Kind of a rural voice of real horse owners, trainers, traders, auction owners, rodeo contractors, etc.. all of us who have taken a verbal beating and called greedy ass hats. Back at the Ranch contributors, moderators, subjects, and so on, are pro-horse, pro-owner, and pro-slaughter.
Back at the Ranch was formed by a group of like minded horse / livestock owners. It is a place for us to try to educate, a place to vent our frustrations with the current equine industry, a place to share humor and snark, and in general try to open the eyes of the public who seem to be anti-agriculture.We do have a section for comments of course, and if you would like to email us you can do so directly or through the contact us form. We like to hear from our readers. I hope you enjoy reading our blog as much as I enjoy managing it.
Sincerely,
Ranch Manager
manager_back_at_the_ranch@yahoo.com

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Yes, Jane It Is a Must Read…

Jane Doe from Montana sent this to us in the comments of the blog. It is written by Sue Wallis, yep, Slaughter Sue. It has all the ear marks of something the NAHSC fears, as Jane Doe said when she sent it to us ‘a must read’.

Ethical Considerations Around Horses, Domestic & Feral, & the Morality of Horse Meat
Society of Range Management

The History
I have been asked to talk about the ethical considerations around horses. To articulate a moral and ethical framework, it is important to understand the historical facts leading up to this time of dilemma.
In 1880, the United States of America had about 6.9 million horses. Those horses were used for everything from transportation to plowing fields to providing the power to run the machinery of the day. They were also used for food. Some Native American tribes, like the Apache, really didn't use horses for transport all that much...they mostly ate what they caught.
There was no such thing as a “wild horse.” All horses belonged to somebody, and all horses had economic value as transportation, as driving and draft animals, and as a source of food, leather, and byproducts.
By the time of the Great Depression we still had around 7 million horses, and they were used for almost everything, although the automobile was starting to show up, especially in the cities, and reduce the need for horses.
At the height of the Depression, the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom, decided that the reason that the cattle market was so poor was not because the economy was ruined and nobody had enough money to buy beef...but that there was too many cattle. So, they forced ranchers to sell their cattle, and their sheep to the federal government for $1 per head, and they dug huge pits, and they drove the cattle into them and they shot them all. They covered it with lye so that no one could use the meat. My grandparents remembered this, and talked about it, and some of yours did, too. It was a scar on their souls for the rest of their lives.
What was the end result? It didn't work, and when World War II broke out, there wasn't enough beef to feed the troops.
Almost simultaneously, John Deere was sweeping the country. With the advent of mechanized machinery there was less and less need for the horses. There was a glut of horses. So what did America do? We did what we always do when faced with a challenge, we used the resources available to us, and we made it work. We sent all the beef we had to the troops, and when that ran out we started using horse meat both at home and abroad. My colleague in the Wyoming Legislature, Rep. Mike Gilmore, remembers that his family ate a lot of horse meat during the War, it was good wholesome meat—high in protein, low in fat—at a price his mother could afford while her husband was fighting overseas. He is far from unusual, if you ask the older folks around you, many will remember this.
After the War, when things started to return to normal, cattlemen moved quickly to regain the market share that they had lost to the government's decimation of their herds, and to the war effort. Their cattle numbers were on the rise, and the overabundance of horses was a serious threat because, of course, there were, as there always are, unscrupulous characters who were taking advantage of the situation. They were buying up all of these excess horses for literally pennies, passing the meat off as beef, and making a killing.
Most of the cattle industry's effort to regain their primacy was couched in what you might call today a “whisper campaign” ...disparage horse meat as un-tasty, coarse, and unfit for consumption, to play up the servicemen's remembrance of nasty canned meat consumed quickly without culinary enhancement in the trenches of warfare. States like Texas and Illinois actually passed laws around 1948 that banned the consumption of horse meat. In 1948 the issue was not animal rights. It was economics and market share, pure and simple. Why they didn't just make it a crime to be a crook, I don't know? Regardless, that 1948 law is exactly what HSUS/PETA used to shut down the processing plants a few years ago.
All over the country, but particularly here in the West, a common occurrence was happening. At about the same time that the Texas cattlemen were passing laws to ban horse meat, my husband's grandfather decided to move from Colorado and buy a ranch in Ruby Valley, Nevada. He bought an outfit lock, stock and barrel including 200 cows, and 80 head of horses, which were used for saddle horses and for haying teams. All of the ranches in Ruby Valley ran their horse herd together, and they ran the stud bunches in the hills on the other side of the flat. They gathered them all once a year in the Spring—each ranch cut out their own haying teams, kept up the young geldings they wanted to train, culled out any old mares or other undesirables to send to the sale, and they changed the studs every few years so they didn't have a stallion breeding his own daughters. When they finished haying they turned the teams out to fend for themselves until the next Spring.
It was only a few years until all of those ranches in Ruby Valley were putting their hay up with machinery. They simply quit gathering the horses. They didn't need them. They weren't worth the effort to gather and send to the sale.
And that, my friends, is the true evolution of the mustangs in the West. They are no more, and no less, than a feral invasive species allowed to reproduce unchecked by any natural predators or natural controls by our predecessors. As experience has shown, unmanaged horse herds will double in population every four years. We ought to be looking at them the same way we do feral hogs, zebra mussels and kudzu.
Before the Wild Horse Annie bills of the early 1970's there was a small business in gathering or catching those horses that did keep the population somewhat in check. They didn't belong to anybody. They were what is defined under Wyoming law as “estray” livestock. If you had enough gumption and skill to get out there and gather them, or catch them, you could sell them and make yourself a few dollars. It never made anybody wealthy, but it did provide a way for some to better themselves, and it did provide a way to prevent the horses from reproducing themselves and everything else out of a habitat to live in.
Since then, those of us who live in the West have seen the devastation that a lack of control and management has wrought. Dr. Burkhardt and others have done a great job telling us what has happened in the last 20 years. The BLM is caught between a mandate to protect the range and the resource, and a romantic notion of horses fed by popular literature, animal rights radicals, and Hollywood. Private horse owners, and State and Tribal jurisdictions are all caught in a no-win situation where all of the tools to manage unuseable, unwanted, abandoned, excess horses are being systematically eliminated—a dramatic shift that has taken what used to be a valuable asset, something you could always take to the sale and get cash money for, something of value—and turned it into a very expensive liability with no options—no place to sell them, no place to dispose of them.
Only on the ranches of the West is the horse still used as an everyday tool to make a living. In the minds of many, horses are no longer the multiple purpose livestock they were originally domesticated to be...now most are just pets, or companion animals, or performance horses.
That is the long and the short of the history of horses in the U.S. 6.9 million horses that pulled or carried us and almost all of our freight in 1880. In spite of the use of horses for food in the 1940's and the lack of the need to use horses for anything but pleasure since then, by 1999 there was once again 6.9 million horses in the United States. Now we mostly pull or carry them wherever they go. By 2009 there were 9.8 million horses. Over 10 million horses today. 3 million more horses than we ever needed when we used them for everything.
The Morality
Without our history, we have no way of avoiding the mistakes of the past, nor do we have any basis on which to establish the moral and ethical framework for managing horses.
Morality has three principal meanings. In its first meaning, morality means a code of conduct or belief which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. For the most part immoral acts are classified as such because they cause harm. In regards to the horse problem, Dr. Terry Whiting, who is the Chair of the Canadian Veterinary Medicine Association’s Animal Welfare Committee probably articulates this best in an article he wrote for the Canadian Veterinary Journal:
"In liberal democracies, governments are usually reluctant to limit personal freedom unless there is an objective, demonstrated public good. For example, some human nudity, specifically public nudity, is restricted by statute in Canada and the USA. Private nudity is uncontrolled and the commercialization of nudity in the entertainment industry is only somewhat regulated. Although under certain circumstances nudity is "offensive" to the general public, it is in no way prohibited. I would argue that good laws are written in a way to protect the innocent from injuries that they could not be protected from in the absence of a statute".
Dr. Whiting goes on to say, "In application of this principle of liberal democracy to the horse meat discussion; the USA is a major exporter of poultry, pork, and beef products, so the export of other meat is not offensive. Provided horses born in the USA are raised, transported, and slaughtered under conditions similar to those for beef cattle or pigs, in what way is an American injured by Canadians or Europeans or Asians consuming horse meat? If a claim of injury is made, what is the nature and severity of that injury? There is agreement that horse slaughter is offensive to some; however, when is personal offense sufficient cause in a liberal democracy for state enforced prohibition or the use of force to deny personal choice to other citizens? Critics of government typically argue that government should refrain from doing that which individuals are capable of doing for themselves. It is an immense expansion of government powers to extend into the regulation of the average citizen’s diet or, apparently, to attempt to alter the diet patterns of other nations." (Whiting, 2007)
In its second sense morality refers to an ideal code of belief and conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to other alternatives by the sane “moral” person.
Finally, in its third usage, morality is synonymous with ethics. Ethics being the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain. Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation, how moral values should be determined, what morals people actually abide by, the fundamental nature of ethics or morality, and how moral capacity or moral agency develops.
The Ethics

And so we come to the crux of the problem. What is right? What is wrong? How do we achieve a moral outcome when the ethical path to a resolution of the horse problem is so often obfuscated by blatant emotional manipulation for purposes of creating drama and raising dollars? We need to meet this head on, with clear thinking, and obvious, unequivocal conviction.
Socrates thought that people will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right.
Aristotle, on the other hand, encouraged moderation and saw extremes as degraded and immoral. For example, courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness. Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by moderate virtue. Moderate virtue is difficult—it denotes doing the right thing, to the right person, at the right time, to the proper extent, in the correct fashion, for the right reason.
So, let us seek that moderate path in regards to the management of horses. With open hearts, and clear minds let us determine what is the right way to ethically manage the land, the people, the wildlife, and the horses.
Let us tackle the toughest question first. Is it moral for human beings to eat horses? I contend that it is, and that those who argue otherwise represent one of Aristotle's degraded and immoral extremes. Here are my reasons:
1) Human beings have evolved as meat eaters. We have eyes in the front of our heads to hunt, and teeth in our mouths designed to tear and chew meat. We can survive, and be healthy on a diet of nothing but meat, while a totally vegan diet—a diet that includes absolutely no animal protein whatsoever—requires not only total dedication and knowledge of exactly what, when, and how to eat, but for long-term health requires synthetics that replace essential nutrients that can only be found in animal products. No society on earth is now, or ever has been completely vegan, for obvious reasons. Those primarily vegetarian societies that come the closest have the shortest lifespans, and the least robust bodies on the planet. On the other hand, the only two mammals in the world that cannot survive on vegetable protein alone, their systems simply do not have the ability to assimilate vegetable protein, are Eskimos and cats. The aboriginal people of the far North before white men and white flour lived on a diet that consisted of practically nothing but whale blubber and fish for most of the year. Archeological evidence proves they lived long healthy lives with strong bones and good teeth. I think that I am more closely related to Eskimos, than herbivores.
2) These are physical facts which cannot be denied. If you are an adult human being who believes that it is immoral to exploit animals for any purpose, and therefore live a completely vegan lifestyle—I can respect that position, and wish you godspeed. If you choose to destroy your health, survive on fake food and manufactured nutrients, and cloak yourself in unsustainable petroleum derived clothing...so be it, it is still a free country. But, if you are working to impose that unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle on others; if you are endangering the lives and health of young children and babies who need animal protein to develop their brains—then I say that you have stepped far over the line and are pursuing a degraded, unethical, immoral objective.
3) Our laws and generally accepted practices agree that it is moral and ethical for human beings to keep livestock, and that it is our responsibility as livestock owners to ensure that they have adequate feed and water to sustain life. A central tenet of providing for livestock is that when slaughtering them for food, that they be killed as quickly and painlessly as possible. This is not only a moral and spiritual imperative, but a quality and economic consideration, as a stressed animal will have a system full of adrenaline, and the meat will be tough and flavorless.
4) There are moral and ethical considerations around wildlife and their use and management, as much or more so as there are around livestock. If you are hunting and you wound an animal, you must track them and kill them rather than allow them to suffer a long and painful death. It is best to be skillful and sure of your weapon in order to kill quickly and painlessly, for exactly the same moral and quality of meat purposes as for livestock. Ask any proficient hunter why their inept counterpart's meat is so “gamey” and awful...they'll be quick to tell you that flavor and tenderness are the result of a clean kill, and in how the meat is handled.
5) It is immoral and unethical for any jurisdiction to allow any particular species to become so overpopulated that they destroy the ecosystem. For this reason, every jurisdiction that manages wildlife monitors the interaction of all species of plants, predators, and prey, the condition of the land, the availability of water, the potential for erosion, and the destruction of invasive species with no natural enemies. In terms of animals, they all utilize lethal means to control populations when necessary—hunting seasons, predator and pest controls, invasive species eradication efforts.
6) Horses need to be considered in the same context. The idea that horses are somehow special, or exempt, from this management, is ludicrous and unsupportable. The idea that the American taxpayer must be responsible for paying for a welfare entitlement program so that every last feral and domestic horse born can live out its 30 or more years of natural life on government supported old horse homes is the most immoral, unethical, and unjust proposition I have ever heard...and yet, that is exactly what is being proposed by our Secretary of Interior in regards to the Bureau of Land Management horses.
7) The costs to taxpayers are staggering. By the BLM's own estimation, they spend an average of $15,000 per horse over a horse's lifetime in capture and holding costs. In Fiscal Year 2007, the BLM spent $38.8 million on its wild horse and burro program; the cost for holding wild horses and burros in short and long term facilities was $21.0 million, meaning holding costs accounted for more than half of the BLM's total program. This level of funding is not sufficient to support necessary removals from the range while maintaining lifetime holding for older unadoptable animals. To continue its current removal, holding, and restrictive sales practices, the BLM is going to need at least $85 million in 2012.
8) The reasons put forward for the extraordinary treatment of horses? Horses are pets, companions, and sporting animals...they are not livestock. Americans don't eat horses, and we shouldn't be supplying those who do. Horses are a spiritual icon of the West and our heritage. It is cruel and inhumane to slaughter a horse. Let's address these one by one: Some horses are pets, companions, and sporting animals. If the owner chooses, they have every right do determine how, and under what circumstances that horse is put out of its misery, and how to respectfully dispose of, or utilize, the carcass. Horses are also multiple purpose livestock who are seen as an ordinary food animal by most of the cultures in the world, including many who live in the United States. Americans ate a lot of horse meat during and after World War II; you can still find horse sausage in some Mom and Pop Scandinavian butcher shops in the upper Midwest; crooks are butchering other peoples' horses in south Florida and selling it out of coolers on the street for black market prices; cultures like the Tongan population in Salt Lake City prize horse meat; and young, single Moms like my daughter who are struggling to raise healthy kids on limited resources would welcome the availability of an affordable, delicious meat that has 40% more protein and 50% less fat than beef. China consumes the most horse meat in the world at 100 million tons per year, with Mexico close behind. In Europe, Italy consumes the most followed closely by the Scandinavian countries, Belgium and France. You can find horse in the meat cases at both ends of Canada in Quebec and Vancouver. Here in the United States we are contemplating making it a felony to transport a horse for the purpose of human food; in clear disrespect for the culinary traditions and cultural attitudes of other nations; and to put off limits a vast, renewable source of wholesome, high quality protein when more than 10 million people a year are literally dying from malnutrition around the world. How ethical is that? And finally, the clincher...the simple fact of butchering a horse for food is cruel and inhumane. Regardless of the long-standing humane methods of slaughter legislation, and universal government inspection of meat processing plants. Regardless of the handling of live animals, the veterinarian approved methods of killing. Regardless of the fact that once death has occurred—quickly, and as painlessly and stress-free as possible—all sensation ends, and that what happens to the carcass is no longer an issue of animal welfare. Regardless of all of this, there is a very vociferous, well financed, and heavily orchestrated effort to legally establish that the simple fact of killing a horse for human food is cruel and inhumane in and of itself. If they can legally establish this, then those of us who make a living with livestock know that it is easy to assert that all animal agriculture is cruel and inhumane, and to destroy our way of being and our culture utterly and completely...and that is exactly what HSUS/PETA has said is their ultimate objective.
9) As you all know, HSUS/PETA efforts have successfully shut down the remaining three horse processing plants in the United States. Their efforts have prevented the BLM from doing what needs to be done to control the over-population of feral horses on Western rangelands. None of these animal rights initiatives offer any solutions to the inevitable glut of unwanted, excess horses. With no US market, the only horses that have any value whatsoever are those who are big enough and healthy enough to be worth the trucking to the only market for low-end horses we have left in Canada and Mexico. With no US market there is no option for horse owners who can no longer afford to keep a horse, or who need or want to access the residual value of an unusable horse. The result? An explosion of abandoned and neglected horses nation-wide, an absolute disaster of suffering, starvation, and disease, and no viable solution to the problem without re-establishing the domestic market. Out here in the West it is easy to just dump them out on public or tribal lands. Back East they turn them out in the roads, and people are hitting them with cars. Slowly the general population is starting to understand that there might be more to this story than the over-hyped manipulated video segments, and over-emotional and outrageous tirades and fabrications of media trained mouthpieces would have us believe. If you have any suspicion at all that this is not happening, please visit the website of a millionhorses.com or abandonedhorses.net and take a look at the new stories and studies that document the scope of the carnage nationwide.
Conclusion
So, where is the ethical and moral middle ground that Aristotle would have us seek? I suggest that at a minimum it would contain these few elements, all of which are articulated in the Core Principles upon which we founded the United Organizations of the Horse. These Core Principles guide all of our activity. Our lead sponsor, Rep. Leonard Boswell of Iowa and his co-sponsors will shortly introduce the Humane and Optimal Restoration and Sustainability of Equines Act, the HORSE Act. In part, because of our efforts, Congress is asking for a GAO study of the impact of the closing of the plants on the welfare of the horses, themselves, and the economic impact on farm income. That report is due on March 1st, and we anticipate hearings around the HORSE Act at about the same time. At the United Organizations of the Horse we are developing industry driven programs such as a National Do Not Slaughter Registry to protect the rights and the interests of those horse owners who never want to see their horse slaughtered. We are also developing a United Organizations of the Horse Quality Assurance Program to minimize transportation risks, bruising and injury of horses bound for slaughter, to ensure that live animals are handled appropriately, and that the meat is safe and free of harmful drug residues. We are working to remove the regulatory roadblocks to a processing plant opening in many of the 45 states that do not have a ban on horse meat.
In terms of the BLM horse problem, one of our guiding principles is that horse numbers be strictly controlled so that we have a sustainable population of wild horses on public lands for our children and grandchildren to appreciate. Most of you are very aware of the GAO study that came out last year that clearly pointed out the flawed methodology currently used by the BLM, and the challenges they face in appropriately managing the horses in relationship to a multiple-use mandate that does not allow for the primacy of a single invasive species over the well-being of all other native wildlife, or responsible use of a renewable resource for the production of livestock, the only way we have of converting grass and water into human food on un-farmable land. Therefore, our position is that the population must be adequately controlled to ensure sustainability, and that no horse should ever be held captive off of the public lands for longer than 90 days. Period. If they cannot be adopted, or otherwise disposed of within that period, then they must be sold to the highest bidder without recourse, and all proceeds returned to better manage the wild populations and the resource base.
Bottom line, if a horse cannot be used for some other purpose, or is not wanted as a pet, then the highest, best use of that animal is to provide healthy, wholesome food to sustain somebody, or something.
To suggest that we should ignore the degradation of the environment, and allow them to multiply to the point that they are starving themselves and every other living thing on the land as being the natural way of things is the most immoral outrage I can imagine...to condemn that many horses, all of that wildlife—elk, deer, rabbits, turkeys, bighorn sheep, and all the rest—endangered and otherwise to a long, slow, agonizing death of starvation and disease...unforgiveable!
Every jurisdiction in the country does their best to control populations of animals. Wildlife managers resort to intensified hunting seasons, predator controls, extreme measures when necessary. Cities, towns, and counties don't allow feral dogs and cats to get out of control, and euthanize them humanely when they are not adoptable or wanted. To suggest that it is the government's role, and the taxpayer's responsibility to support every excess, unwanted, unuseable horse for as long as they shall live, regardless of the cost...ridiculous!
Disposing of a 1,000 lb. horse carcass is more of a challenge than a dog or a cat. To suggest that it is more moral to kill nearly 200,000 wild and domestic horses a year with toxic drugs that if left in the open will kill any scavenger that feeds on the carcass, if buried will leach into water tables, cannot even be rendered into useful by-products, or composted, because of toxic residues—to suggest that this is somehow more moral than feeding someone, or something...horrific!
Our founding fathers had a keen appreciation of the central role of private property in social life. Just as a strong view of the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion is necessary to serve fundamental constitutional values, so, too, is a strong view of private property in a free and democratic society. Private property rights include exclusive rights of possession, use, and disposition, and our legal system includes effective systems to record title and to transfer ownership. No one disputes that all domestic animals are private property. To deprive horse owners of options in terms of access to a viable market, or to try and legally determine which animals people can eat based purely on the spurious social and cultural attitudes of a few...unconscionable and unprecedented!
My personal morality says that it is an unethical waste of a massive amount of healthy, nutritious meat that would otherwise be welcomed by a world wide market, and an unconstitutional infringement upon my rights as a horse owner to be deprived of that viable market in order to make a living, to maximize my investment in all classes of livestock, or to even enjoy the nourishment of the meat itself if I choose. As a legislator, and a citizen, I hold the Wyoming State Constitution very close to my heart, and it guides every action I take, and it says, “nowhere in a Republic does absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty, or property of free men exist, not even in the largest majority.”
We know what is right and what is wrong. We cannot allow that certainty to be subverted. We cannot allow special interests to draw ourselves and our wild and domestic horses into this unmanageable morass. We cannot allow the devastation of our land and environment by political decisions, rather than sound science and good stewardship. We cannot allow the annihilation of our culture, our traditional ways of living and being with animals, the threat to our health, well-being, and generations to come.
In the end, all we can do...what we must do...is to strive for that courageous moderate way that Aristotle espoused, to protect our rights, our land, our people, and our animals...to do what Socrates advised...to do what we know is right, and to be happy.
- Sue Wallis Society of Range Management – Wild Horse and Burro Conference Reno, Nevada

Arbitrary power, weren’t we talking about a form of that on the wish list of the NAHSC in a previous blog when Jane post this to us? Maybe our good friends Fugly, Vicki, or John want to step up and tell Sue she “just doesn’t know the facts”.
by RH1

76 comments:

  1. WOW!!!!!! Finally!!!!! I think this is the best piece I have read, hands down! Every issue we have been discussing is addressed in a no nonsense, calm maner. The facts are here to be read, and the history is not to be denied. Our only hope is that cool heads prevail, and that people ARE listening! Thank you for posting this. When I send my letters to my reps this month, this goes with it. It's about time we began to realize that our rights are precious, and thatcommon sense can bring about a mediation that will work for all. Good post!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. When i read this yesterday I just had to get it on here for you to read... It says it all.. and so very well done.... FACTS... I would love to see what Fugley, Vicki and John have to say about it...

    Jane Doe.... Montana.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jane Doe, Thank you for giving us the link to the article. It's informative and verifiable and quite interesting.
    John and Vicki...sigh, my guess is they will flatly state it is all lies. They will have no basis or facts to back up that statement but hey, when have they ever needed anything factual while running on at the mouth...or fingers as the case may be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was around before horses were used for human consumption. IT WAS ILLEGAL to eat hosemeat, it still is illegal to eat it in the United States. It was never how you explained it. How come when horses for human consumption went on kid horses had a $2500 price tag and a two year waiting line to get ahold of a kid horse over 16 years old? It was because the killers were lying to people about what was going to happen to those animals. They would lie, steal and cheat people out of them. You should get off your butts and ride those horses. But you won't cause it's easier to sell them for slaughter. Thats fine more money for me to sell as trail and kid horses. Try bringing more people into the industry. Sorry theres more than just vegans against horse slaughter. Tell me are you one of the ones the AQHA paid to get horse slaughter up and running again?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon, wow I don't even know where to start... hmmmm. I'll make it short and to the point. You are stupid. There is a difference between ignorance and stupid. Ignorant can be fixed and forgiven. You, well, you are just an idiot and a little crazy too if you believe any of what you typed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon... I want to know WHERE it is ILLEGAL to eat horse meat??? If I want to take my horse in and have it killed and cut up and put in my freezer I can do that and not any one can stop me... no law saying I can not do that... as RM said.. you are so very stupid AND ignorant it is not funny...
    now tell me... where do you get your info??? ABR?? or are you just one of them heads up your butts kinda people that think they know it all and yet know nothing?
    or it just might be that your just a peace of lint on someones jeans... cuz if you was around before horses were ever ate then you was around before time began... I do not think there was ever a time that horses were not ate somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous-Horses have been used for human consumption for as long as I've been around, and I'm well into adulthood. Many cultures consume horsemeat, and have for quite some time. If you read the article, you can see it was consumed here in the United States and that the plants operated "legally" until 1948. I'm not aware of any law prohibiting the consumption of horsemeat here now. I'm pretty sure that the "steak man" that came around when we were kids selling steaks was selling horse meat, although I didn't know it at the time. But, yes, we ate the steaks. The guy was cheaper than the grocery stores. The $2500 kid broke horse is a whole different ball game. But the Antis have a hand in that, too. They don't want people selling those good horses when they no longer have a use for them. Oh, no! Those horses are to be kept for the rest of their lives even if they are pasture puffs. Better that than run the risk of possibly maybe ending up someday at a sale where possibly maybe a Kill buyer may possibly maybe bid on them and may or may not send them on that infamous "Slaughter Pipeline". People have been shamed into keeping a good horse that could have gone on to be used, and yes, could have made those people a bit of profit. Yeah, those nasty Killers, just spending all day long lying to those innocents just to end the life of a horse. Nevermind that there's more money in a rider-I'm not even going to go down this road, been down it too many times. Please educate yourself on what really goes on, though. And where are YOU getting your trail horses for kids? And are YOU getting $2500? By the way, the AQHA isn't paying anyone to get the Slaughter plants up and running, common sense is simply beginning to prevail. Your name wouldn't be Tommy by any chance, would it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. That article is old news and has more holes than swiss cheese. It’s a good piece but horse slaughter has nothing to do with morals, what happened 100 years ago or during the war doesn’t cut it in today’s world. Who is to say that my morals are right and yours are wrong? Terrorists commit murder in the name of religion and they think they’re moral. Everyone has a different view of morals.

    The question of horse slaughter is one of a food animal vs. a non-food animal. The issue that Slaughterhouse Sue never addresses is the drug issue. How are you going to certify that horses have never received prohibited substances? Y’all don’t want NAIS or a passport system so come April, you are not going to be able to certify a horse has not received Bute, wormers, etc. without health records from birth. All those abandoned horses you keep complaining about – if you can’t find the owners, you can’t certify them. How are you going to certify stolen horses? Race horses can’t go to slaughter. They are loaded with banned substances to keep them in top racing form. Once a horse has had a banned substance, they can never enter the food chain.

    So while you’re still trying to justify slaughter and not address the cause of excess horses and fix that, you are going to have close to 100,000 horses that can’t be slaughtered and still have the problem to deal with. You can raise horses for slaughter, track them and turn them into livestock but that still won’t solve the problem of the 100,000 horses that you’ve been sending to slaughter than won’t be eligible.

    All these years and you’re still back at square one refusing to address the real issue.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ah yes RH2 I knew the disjointed rather insane rantings sounded familiar! If it isn't tommy then it must be a relative lol.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You folks just continue to provide laughs. Is that cartoon horse before or after being CBG'd?


    Talk about bloviating! You with Slaughter Sue's repost post would even send Glenn Beck into a tizzy. But again, let's never let facts or reality get in the way of your comfy, cozy fluffed reality.

    It's like job security for folks searching and validating truth. As to responding to SS, well maybe I should apply for a thesis and get my Master's??? Because it would take a ton of time and space to redress Ms. Wallis. But I promise to do it...not like you dumpers will get it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And it took you this long to post the Purveyor Princess's post because:

    (1) You needed a translator;
    (2) You can't read;
    (3) Wait to get fed the silage;
    (4) Don't have a real time clue with anything regarding life.
    (5) Internet Emmy quest/low hit counter.

    I vote for all of the above.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here's the thing I find interesting. While being insulted is fun you bring no new information. You are the top of the class yet you bring no ideas. It always seems to happen that way.

    <<<<As to responding to SS, well maybe I should apply for a thesis and get my Master's???<<<<
    <<<Is that cartoon horse before or after being CBG'd?<<<<

    You're right I don't get. What the f*** are has that got to with anything remotely connected with the subject? Oh that's right it doesn't have to make sense because you are 'educated' even though you don't have a Masters.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I love this part.

    In all reality I should thank you people for lowering my overhead. A good prospect used to cost $1,200 to $2,000. They are now $400 to $800. Sorry the free ones don't interst me.....you get what you pay for although I don't expect any of the recent posters to "get that".

    Admittedly, I may be a bit behind on the slaughter issue press, Vicki. I don't devote my life to follwoing it the way you do. Riding, feeding, hauling hay, riding, cleaning stalls, hauling shavings, riding. Any of that ring a bell with anyone?

    Why don't ya'll fill me in....

    ReplyDelete
  14. One of my favorites – “It would deprive American horse owners access to a market, and deprive them of their property rights without compensation—which is blatantly unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment.”

    Why isn’t she whining about compensating dog and cat owners that dump their animals at shelters? With her logic, they should be getting paid for that. Again, why only horses? Shouldn’t owners of other non-food animals be compensated to dump their animals?

    The 5th reads “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    How on earth could anyone with an ounce of intelligence comprehend that not having a horse slaughtered is against the 5th amendment? Come on, ladies. By the biggest stretch of the imagination, you couldn’t possibly interpret this amendment as valid in her ramblings. The horse is not being taken away for public use nor is she being deprived of her property. The compensation refers to property that is taken away for public use.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I suppose you enjoyed her rant on anyone that against horse slaughter is a vegan trying to bring down agriculture. She is so far off base. Most of us are meat eaters. She keeps yapping about PETA and they aren’t even involved in the efforts to end horse slaughter. She knows it but she just keeps ranting.

    I have to mention that those of fighting to end slaughter are grateful that Sue has emerged. We couldn’t ask for a better, misinformed, illogical spokesperson for the anti-horse side. She makes our work so much easier. She is on terror now to boycott all the celebs that want to end horse slaughter. We are having a blast. EWA got a press release out of it and several of the celebs were interviewed on major news stations. Her little rant gave us more public awareness of what is happening to our horses.

    Imagine, all the millions that Willie Nelson has raised for farmers and ranchers and she wants him boycotted. Gotta love it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. rh 1, there hasn’t been much press on the slaughter issue although it is starting to heat up. Lately it’s been all wild horses and burros and trying to get a straight answer out of the Bureau of Lies and Manipulation. I don’t devote my life to ending horse slaughter but I’ve been at this for several years and I’m not about to walk away.

    I think you are thanking the wrong people for lowering your overhead. I would suggest you aim your comments at Bush and Obama. They are at fault for the tanking economy. Do you blame the closure of the plants for your house value, savings and car values dropping or the millions and millions of US jobs that are gone? Everything we own has lost value. While you’re at, thank the folks that keep producing more horses than there is a demand for. You can’t blame lack of slaughter. It is still available to anyone wishing to send their horse to slaughter. Horse prices held for a full year after the plants closed. They didn’t start dropping until the end of 2008, beginning of 2009. And what a coincidence, that’s when the economy started tanking. But if it makes you feel better, keep right on blaming the closure of the plants.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here's the deal Vicki. You have no inclination to discuss bloodlines, conformation, genetic traits, training issues, show or race regulations, tax structures, or any other issues which could benifit the horse industry and in turn the horses in the long run.

    The more value and longevity of use a horse has the less likely he is to end up on the big truck. The better trained and more useful companion or work partner he is adds to his sentimental and real value. I prefer to address slaughter from the added value point... you don't have the knowledge to work from that end. It's not your thing. I understand that but prefer not put much weight in your opinions or "facts" because of it.

    Is it illegal to ship dogs to Chins or Korea? It's not profitable but I don't think it's illegal. Native Americans ate dog too by the way.

    History is not relevant remember? What Willie did in the 80s has nothing to with now. Even when the 80s were crashing around us out here in the sticks there were still no "free" horses.

    Boycotting Willie, not a problem or concern for me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Since I have been summoned I will join the party and make a comment or two.

    Like you folks, I just love Sue Wallis. She is the best possible representative for the brutal business of horse slaughter. We could not ask for more. She demonstrates with almost every word that she has no grasp of almost anything except how much her membership dues are.

    For example, she claims above "there was no such thing as a wild horse in 1880!" I love that one. Then I guess by Sue's accounting of history, the Spanish Conquistadors dropped off the "Spanish Mustangs" sometime a few hundred years later than most historians previously figured.

    Or her claim that the mustangs first appeared after WWII. That is a startling revelation if you know about any of the particular mustang genes. For example, the Sheldon wild horses were cavalry mounts turned loose after the indian wars. So first we learn that the Conquistadors showed up after 1880 and now the indian wars happened after WWII? This is ground breaking stuff folks! You should get this out to history departments around the country!

    Or how about "My personal morality says that it is unethical to waste a massive amount of healthy, nutricious meat that would otherwise be welcomed by a world wide market..." And how about the morality of sending drug laced meat to unsuspecting people in Europe? USDA tests a few years ago showed that 8% of the meat was contaminated with phenylbutazone alone. PBZ causes aplastic anemia (bone marrow suppression which is fatal) in addition to being an carcinogen. You are horse people. You know Bute is the asprin of horse medicine.

    Horses are not raised as food animals people, and unless you want to give up almost all your effective medications you better not ask that they be treated that way.

    The USDA conveniently shared the kind of morality Sue exhibits and discontinued the tests in favor of testing fat samples (pbz does not take up in fat, so you can test it all day with no pesky positives).

    That entire Wallis diatribe above is a bad joke and that anyone could take it seriously is beyond sad. I could go on and on.

    Didn't any of this register when you read it, or were you just so excited by the rhetoric that you didn't think about it? I was rolling on the floor!

    If you really want to know something about the mustangs and the origins of horses, read this article:

    www.horsetalk.co.nz/features/extinction-176.shtml

    You will find that all horses, donkeys and other eqines everywhere in the world (including zebras) started in North America.

    It has also been found that after evolving for millions of years in North America the modern horse disappeared about 7,500 years ago (more recently than previously thought). The article tells of DNA research that proved the Clovis people hunted the horses before they disappeared, but concludes that their disappearance here was probably due to a combination of things including climate change that changed the forage.

    Before dying out here, the modern horse migrated over the Bering land bridge and spread throughout Asia, Africa and Europe before it returned with the Conquistadors in the 1500s.

    So in geological time, the modern horse was missing for only the blink of an eye (.18% of its history). They are not an introduced species, they belong here. This is their home. But the same cannot be said for the 7.5 million cattle BLM allows to graze on public lands (at a cost to taxpayers of 80 cents on the dollar).

    You guys can cheer Sue on all you want, but when someone knowlegable reads her dribble she will bring you nothing but discredit and derision.

    John Holland, EWA

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, Sue has just outdone herself. She asked that people boycott a dead woman (Bea Author). Yet another first! Like I say folks, Sue is the gift that goes on giving!

    ReplyDelete
  20. OH I will do the Boycotting thing with Willie.. he is not what everyone believes anyway.. I met the man... what a jackass...
    Vicki.. you sure need to do some fact finding let me tell you. YOU are the one that is behind times... and if you think you and all your
    ANTI's got me running for the hills... well.. if it makes you happy to think that then just go for it... you do not own horses.. you do not even know what a good horse looks like or if it has any training... do you even know how to put a halter on a horse?
    Horses were food before they were ever thought of being a beast of burden. Horse have always had a place on the table somewhere.. yes here in the good old US of A as well as over seas.
    Just because you like to eat sea weed and roots do not mean that other people do... My great grand dad always had a horse in the freezer.. Grandma would eat nothing else... oh ya.. she lived to be 107.. her daughter will be 100 in 4 months.. Horse will always be a form of food.. just like the Ox was used to pull wagons west... then plow the field.. then feed the family's .. so has the horse.
    FACTS... get them right Vicki... DO YOUR HOME WORK.

    ReplyDelete
  21. rh 1, I thought this blog was about Slaughterhouse Sue’s speech. Did I miss something? Or are you changing the subject purposely?

    Since I am so uneducated, please enlighten me on how a Kentucky derby winner ended up on a plate. Lack of training? Bad bloodlines? Was it a genetic trait or he was one of those dangerous horses? I’ll bet it was because the owner didn’t get a big enough tax break on the millions the horse earned for him. Old Friends’ retirees have combined winnings of over $60M. Too bad they weren’t trained properly. Taylor’s Special was found abandoned on a farm. Oh, and that’s when all three plants were operating but how can that be since slaughter prevents neglect and abandonment. He had 21 wins and earned over $1M and was humanely euthanized in 2006.

    They treat them great while they’re using them and earning money and then dump them when their careers are over. How utterly ridiculous to expect an owner to take a portion of the money the horse earned to provide a retirement. Racing is multi-billion dollar industry. Who is earning the money? Who are the attendees coming to see? With all your knowledge that I can never hope to achieve, explain to me how the horses that are trained properly, have great careers in racing, cutting, reining, etc. end up on the slaughter trucks? Doesn’t it come back to owner responsibility?

    I may be dumb but I’m smart enough to know that breeders that use slaughter to cull the excess so they can breed more, are not going to make companion animals out of the excess horses they can’t sell. And that is where most of the slaughter bound horses are coming from. It is not from 100,000 owners sending 1 horse to slaughter. Great bloodlines or training is not going to stop that. If they can’t sell them, they want to dump them and get paid for it.

    BTW-you do know that Slaughterhouse Sue doesn’t own a horse, don’t you? So I guess you don’t put much weight in her opinions or “facts” either.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Good bless you Bea Arthur! Sorry Slaughterhouse Sue doesn't fact check before she spews.

    Also, it is beyond unbelieveable that Sue or should I say Stu wants people to boycott celebs that support a program that shows the correlation between animal abuse and people abuse. "First Strike" is a very important program run by HSUS. Every serial killer abused animals first before they killed people.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous, was there a question in your rant? I don’t eat seaweed or roots. What homework do I need to do? I never said horses weren’t food animals. I said American horses aren’t food animals. No market. If there was, the meat wouldn’t have all been shipped overseas. You don’t need to do homework on that one.

    I have haltered many a horse but what does that have to do with Slaughterhouse Sue’s hilarious speech?

    Food animals don’t run in the Derby. Food animals don’t work or perform. Food animals stand around in a feedlot waiting to go to market. I haven’t seen any cows used in therapy or mounted police riding sheep. Food animals don’t get banned substances. Food animals are tracked from birth. Can’t say that about American horses. So exactly how are they a food animal in 2010?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hey, good-some of the gang is here:) I was glad to see the post for the information it shared in it's history on the WHY of the closing of the plants here. It has NEVER been about some great historical love, as many would have some believe, but pure economics. And for those who state that horsemeat was never consumed here, so should never be shipped elsewhere, it shows that indeed it was. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, and don't have to follow any person's suggestions to the letter. But I do agree with most of what was posted here. I agree that it is a waste when there are countries that eat horse meat, and we can provide it. Sure, we can go off in all directions and talk about all of the drugs, and the Race horses that have ended up on someone's dinner plate. We can even talk about Willie Nelson like he's some kind of saint. Those are certainly issues that we should be discussing, but they don't deter from the idea that there are countries that eat horse meat, and we are a country that supplies it. And we still do.
    I don't begrudge anyone their opinion on Slaughter. I respect what everyone feels. That's the great thing about America-so far. We all have the right to share our opinions. And until recently, those against Slaughter could save as many horses as they wished to. If anyone can look at what is going on now, especially with the Rescues, and say we're doing a better job, they're just lying to themselves. I'm one of those people who don't like the fact that we have Slaughter, and I'm willing to work hard to decrease the numbers as much as I can. I want the plants in America open again, because we can do a better job than the places the horses go to now. Talk about flawed thinking-those who contend we'll ust continue to send horses on unregulated trailers to countries that butcher them until Slaughter ends makes no sense to me. And yes, I know the logic. If we open that Slaughter door, things will just run amok. Take a look around, folks. You've got Anti Slaughter Rescues doing business with Auction houses and Kill buyers-for the greater good of course. You've got Rescues abusing neglecting and killing horses. And still, Slaughter exists. Little has changed for the horses, except possibly the number of horses in need, the number of people willing to help and the number of people in it for the scam. I've also learned from personal experience how many of those wonderful "famous" Anti Slaughter people are willing to really DO something when help is needed. I was truly surprised at the lack of caring. Lip service-yeah, that's easy. To DO something-not so much. And even on a more localized level-not a person. But, that is another blog for another day. Bottom line, I'm glad we've got a discussion going. Any new suggestions on what to do with the horses in need of homes and the lack of those homes? Any ideas on what to do about those Rescues that are working with Brokers and Fedlots, and taking horses from private buyers-or is that okay with you all? Any ideas on what to do about the horses that are "saved" and then we hear about THEM being abused, and neglected? It's easy to simply say we're not going to have Slaughter any more, and that those who don't agree are horrid people. But we've got a lot of problems with those who claim to have the answer. Any ideas on any solutions?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Vicki "Food animals don’t run in the Derby. Food animals don’t work or perform. Food animals stand around in a feedlot waiting to go to market. I haven’t seen any cows used in therapy or mounted police riding sheep. "
    Interesting...the thousands of FFA and 4-H youth who raise, Train, and Show their Swine, Sheep, Beef and Dairy Cattle would be surprised to learn this.
    Vicki, you go on and on with your accusations, and asking the writers of this blog questions about the race industry, breeding, training, banned substances, etc... If you read the blog (look in the archives if need be) you could easily get your answers to those questions and you may learn something too.
    We do not spend all of our time whining about the closing of the US slaughter plants. We spend our time pinting out the many issues in the horse industry that contribute to the big problems we are having now. OK I admit we also spent some time making fun of the ABforum, the FOB, and the NAHSC.... but hey we all need to have a little fun sometimes.
    I notice now that the anti side has been discredited on the moral, ethical, and abuse arguments, you all turn to the drug issue. Some of the substances you call banned are not. They are used in beef cattle all the time. Other substances, such as bute, don't have to be used in horses and contrary to what you believe less horse owners use it than you say. It isn't very good for the horse and there are other drugs and natural substances that are just as affective or more so.
    Rather than trying to grill rh1 and force her to waste time repeating herself do a little reading yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ranch Manger, those issues are front and center with horse slaughter, with the drug issue at the top of the list. Maybe you don’t care about what you want to feed Europe, but they do. They’re paying $20-$40 per pound. It has already hit the foreign press. The substances are banned. Perhaps a brand of one of the substances isn’t banned but the brands of meds I’ve seen most commonly used by horse owners are banned and the labels state not intended for food animals. Bute is banned in all food producing animals. It is that lack of discussing the real issues that have the anti-horse folks in probably the worst position they’ve been in. It is comments like that, that do our work for us. Perhaps you haven’t noticed but nobody is paying attention to Wallis’ nonsense. The anti-horse folks have distanced themselves from her. That should tell you something. The only press she got was a reporter wanting to check into a state representative’s use of tax deductible donations for lobbying.

    I don’t know where you get your info from but we have not been discredited on the abuse arguments. They are documented in black, white and color and can’t be disputed. Even the anti-horse folks key lobbyist, Conrad Burns agreed with us. Haven’t you noticed they are no longer saying the CBG is humane on horses? Haven’t you noticed that are now saying they want a more humane slaughter plant? How do you call that discrediting our side? It is the other side that uses moral and ethical arguments. That is Sue’s speech. Her entire speech is on morals and ethics – even the title!

    Why did the blog owner post a speech all about horse slaughter and then expect the discussion to be about something else? There is so much good material in it that can be so easily disputed you can’t expect people to not want to post comments on a diatribe like that. Jeez. She invited John and me to comment but we will go away if that’s what you want. She didn’t say she wanted to discuss something other than what she posted.

    Obviously, you don’t know Slaughterhouse Sue. All she cares about is slaughtering horses. Heck, you can send her $1,000 to join her little band of horse haters. She calls that grass roots. Since when is grass roots charging for membership, collecting donations and accepting compensation to lobby?

    ReplyDelete
  27. For Ranch Manager:

    Just to highlight one of your many erroneous pearls of wisdom..."...I notice now that the anti side has been discredited on the moral, ethical, and abuse arguments, you all turn to the drug issue. Some of the substances you call banned are not. They are used in beef cattle all the time..."

    I'm unaware of any scientific discrediting of the no equines to human consumption horse slaughter contingent. Sue Wallis? Dave Duquette? You're going to have to better. As to substances, banned or withdrawel protocal the fact of the matter is that currently there is nothing in place for equines save for the EU 6 month withdrawel that does not even mention bute exposure. Protocals for different species are just that, different. Since none has been done for US based equines (contact Fort Dodge, Farnam, etc if you don't believe me), where do you extrapolate that because cattle get it, it's OK for equines that enter the human food chain? I'm pleased that you are pleased with yourself about withholding pain meds for your equines. However, since you can't speak for all owners sending to HCHS, you can't use that argument. The science and reports don't exist. Why? Because the US doesn't raise equines as a human consumption meat source. Selling to foreign consumption is a loophole and does not make equine drugs the equivalent of bovine drugs. Either way, there is no withdrawel protocal for equines.

    That you have and hold an opinion does not make it truth or valid. The only thing I have a requirement to do is let you hold and pronounce your opinion. It doesn't mean that I have to remain silent. And Vicki and John did an excellent job making their case. That you don't agree or choose to ignore does not invalidate.

    You are only consistent in your slaughter position...not your facts or logic. But please, continue to drive on the road to nowhere. It's such a problem solving approach.

    D. Masters

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes D. Masters, I was struck by the line about us being discredited! What? A rambling diatribe that confuses history to the point of having the Conquistadors appear after 1880 and the Indian wars occur after 1945 has "discredited" us? So we turn to the drug issue?

    It was you guys who did not respond to those glaring corrections of the delusional Wallis document. We were specifially challenged to refute it and we exposed just a few of its inaccuracies.

    I do not contend that Sue was lying, because that would infer that she actually knew the facts. I believe she knows only what people like you guys want to hear and apparently has no grasp of history, economics, or most certainly ethics.

    The Wallis piece said it was immoral to waste vast quantities of horse meat, and we were simply pointing out that it is immoral to ship contaminated meat to other countries that trust us to provide safe food.

    So allow me to recap the world according to Sue Wallis:
    1) The Conquistadors dropped off the Spanish mustangs well after the Civil war.
    2) The cavalry dropped off their mounts after the Indian wars which came after WWII (I keep wondering why the US Army did not use tanks against the Native Americans in that case?)
    3) It is immoral not to send contaminated meat to eager consumers.
    4) And you can make this all right by boycotting a dead person and living people who are so popular that they would not notice it if every horse owner in the world boycotted them? That is more delusion!

    I just can't seem to feel discredited over this...sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The no equines to human consumption horse slaughter contingent has been more than consistent on facts and points of debate. The only thing changing with regard to same is the numbers still shipping to HCHS and numbers of owners still not doing the right thing by their charges. Factor in FOIAs and economy, the numbers of bred equines pretty much stays the same save for the responsible owners and specific high dollar sensitive markets like TBs.

    But continue to shift, deflect and NEVER, EVER quote a fact or USDA stat or accepted research paper. Just continue to say we are wrong and delusional...that will take you far in your "gotta have PAID for slaughter" to be a competent and accomplished horseman.

    Vicki, John...most excellent posts.

    p.s. priceless comment about Vicki not owning a horse and Wallis says she doesn't either. And Wallis is the burning bush because???? Oh, that's right, she supports HCHS. Great qualifier.

    D. Masters

    ReplyDelete
  30. Vcki -“It is that lack of discussing the real issues that have the anti-horse folks in probably the worst position they’ve been in. “
    Yes Vicki, you guys are in a pretty bad position. The general public is finally seeing more of the truth rather than what you want to be the truth.

    “The anti-horse folks have distanced themselves from her.”
    You don’t seem to have distanced yourself too far. You came here after how long? to fill the comment section because we posted information from Sue Wallis.

    “Haven’t you noticed that are now saying they want a more humane slaughter plant?
    Why did the blog owner post a speech all about horse slaughter and then expect the discussion to be about something else? “
    We have always wanted humane slaughter, that is nothing at all new. I’m the “blog owner” and I think you missed my point completely. We are discussing slaughter in this particular post.

    “Jeez. She invited John and me to comment but we will go away if that’s what you want.”
    If you want to bow out don’t blame it on me, I never asked you to leave. I don’t see where the co-owner, RH1, specifically invited you but hey that's OK this is not a private blog. We welcome all here no matter how miss informed they are. If you feel that people disagreeing with what you say is somehow asking you to leave then you must be used to being asked to leave by now.
    “Since when is grass roots charging for membership, collecting donations and accepting compensation to lobby?”
    Are you serious? That’s funny.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If this isn’t a invitation, what is “Maybe our good friends Fugly, Vicki, or John want to step up and tell Sue she “just doesn’t know the facts”.

    Perhaps you didn’t read my post correctly. We most certainly are in a good position.The leading issue with horse slaughter right now is the drug issue. It is being looked at very closely. The foreign countries that consume the meat are questioning the safety and you guys don’t want to discuss it. D. Masters pointed out that drug protocols are different for different species. What is acceptable in cows, is not acceptable in horses. No response from you. All those abandoned horse stories are back-firing because if you can’t find the owners, you can’t certify they are drug free. You can ignore the drug issue but that’s not going to make it go away.

    RH2 said it was the best piece he/she has seen. When just a sampling of the inaccurate info was pointed out, you ignored it. I said to ignore what happened one hundred years ago but instead, you opened the door for John to post the inaccurate history in Sue’s speech. No response. She doesn’t know a horse from a cow and doesn’t have a clue about American history. She will say and twist everything to support slaughter. The history lesson in her speech is a perfect example of that. I pointed out the 5th amendment reference. No response. Would you like us to point out what else is not correct in her speech? But it’s the best piece you’ve seen. Many of our advocates were at the meeting where she delivered her speech and their jaws dropped. Of course, no time was allowed for Q & A. Deliver a speech fraught with inaccuracies and move on. Of course we stay close to what she is circulating just as they follow our press releases and what we circulate. Do you think we want people that are not up-to-date on the issue to be reading false information? If you post inaccurate information like Wallis’ speech, you are going to get comments. If you don’t want to discuss it, that’s fine but then at least say so and we wouldn’t waste our time.

    We pointed out how she keeps hammering PETA. They are not involved in the efforts to end horse slaughter. Do you know how ridiculous that makes your side look when you are going after an organization that isn’t involved? Do you know how ridiculous you look when the face of slaughter is calling for a boycott of a celebrity that is deceased? That is great press for us. The sure sign of losing is to start attacking people personally and gives her the appearance of being desperate. We attack the information she sends, but not her personally. In fact, we try not to even mention her name in press releases.

    I was told the horses needed training and better bloodlines to save them from slaughter and that I didn’t know what I was talking about. When I asked how a Kentucky Derby winner with excellent training and bloodlines ended up on a plate, no response. Another one went on a multi paragraph rant about I need to do homework but didn’t say what he/she was disputing but felt the need to ask f I had ever haltered a horse. That will surely solve the horse slaughter issue and greatly help with a solution. Posting anonymously is the first clue. He/She could at least use a fake name so the individual can be addressed.

    John and I have two huge stories breaking so if you don’t want to discuss the issues, we won’t waste our time. And please, do us all a favor. Throw your support behind Wallis and ask your friends to do the same. Please keep posting speeches and articles she writes. It is the best advertising for everything that is wrong with slaughter.

    ReplyDelete
  32. <<<<<But the same cannot be said for the 7.5 million cattle BLM allows to graze on public lands (at a cost to taxpayers of 80 cents on the dollar).<<<<<<<<<

    I did the math on the land required to run just the 33,000 head of mustangs now being held in captivity by the BLM. A million acres is what Madeliene Pickens was going to buy. That breaks down to slightly more than 30 acres per animal unit. For the sake of argument we will use the cow/calf pair which is one definition of an animal unit. Many portions of the west would require from 40 to 100 acres per animal unit. So let's just say the 1,000,000 acres is a conservative estimate. The cattle produce revenue in the western states at a far greater return than cost. Here's how it breaks down. Here's what 33,000 of those "costly" cows returned to the state tax revenues.
    ********************

    If the land is running 33,000 mother cows divided by a 350 head cow herd per ranch operation means these million acres are at work making a living for 94 families. Those same 33,000 cows will produce 29,700 calves based on 90% live calf crop figure. Using the October 10 markets from the High Plains Journal, steer calves weaning at 500 to 550 lbs., 100.00 to 107.50, an average of 1.03 or $ 540.75 per head assumedly half of the marketable calves will be the above referred “steers”. The cash sale value of those 14,850 steer calves, $8,030,137.50. Their heifer sisters weaning at the same weight 500 to 550 lbs., 91.00 to 96.25, an average of 93.87 or $ 492.81 per head with a total market value of $7,318,228.85, producing $15,348,366.35.
    The lion’s share of this money will be spent in the local ranching communities where these calves were raised and sold. Feed stores, breeding stock producers, insurance brokers, real estate agencies, local banks, schools, livestock auctions, truck dealers, implement dealers, vets, and so on. All will take a piece of the ranch’s calf crop income to circulate through the state’s economy. At every turn in their lives these calves will be providing labor and revenue somehow. The end result is around 18,000,000 pounds of beef at the grocery store. I read the average American eats 69 pounds of beef annually. You do the math. I did in “How Can This Make Sense” last summer, thought it might apply here too.
    The shift from productive livestock to non productive livestock will not be without cost. The ones feeling warm and fuzzy about it will not be bearing the brunt of the cost. …

    If just 33,000 of those cattle return that much revenue to the tax base imagine how 7.5 million pencils out. I don't think killing horses is the point of Sue's political stance. I think it is keep all those millions of dollars in the Wyoming tax base every year.

    <<<<<<<<So first we learn that the Conquistadors showed up after 1880 and now the indian wars happened after WWII? This is ground breaking stuff folks! You should get this out to history departments around the country!<<<<<<

    No, you should read up on the history of the west. She is referring to the fencing of the open range states, the shift from driving cattle to the markets by trail drive rather than using the railheads established through out the west in the latter half of the 1900th century west. Historically prior to the ending of open range....if it had an owner it was branded. If it was unbranded....it belonged to anyone who could catch it. Horses were free ranging but they weren't wildlife. The same applied to cattle and we hear nothing of the "wild" cattle roaming the west. She is not in anyway referring to the Spaniards.

    I'll get back to this later. I don't have time to play right now. But there are two of your fancy little jokes pulled apart at the seams.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Vicki, John and D. Masters;

    Sorry, not to be rude, but you are really, really wasting a lot of your valuable time trying to bring the facts forward to people who will not even "come" forward and take a stand with their God given names instead of hiding behind smoke screens. It's easy to come up with a handle like "Ranch Manager" or simply Anonymous and throw stones from behind the bushes where they hide. If you were to ever meet any of these individuals in person, you would quickly find out that they couldn't carry on a simple conversation. It takes no talent or fortitude to hide, to second guess, edit, rework and then hit the send button but it is much more difficult to stand up, speak aloud and/or in person with confidence because you know the facts and the truth. This is a new phenomenon that the internet has created where the weak, meek and timid can hide behind cyber-bully personas when in reality they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

    Bless you guys for trying to educate the emotionally and intellectually challenged but you are seriously wasting your time; they are too busy pulling the wings off from flies and popping pimples to give a moment of serious thought, or consideration, to what you are saying. (They just can't, nor do they want to, see it. The truth sometimes hurts and in their case, it is devastating.)

    So if they don't have the gonads to be honest and transparent then I wouldn't waste my time on them.

    Some people just can't be helped

    R.T. Fitch - (I use my real name just like a grown-up, go figure)

    ReplyDelete
  34. rh1, that is a great math equation but has one minor flaw, the revenue you have calculated does not go the BLM or back to the taxpayers that are subsidizing the welfare ranchers. The fees from leases don’t even cover the cost of EA or EIS to determine if there is sufficient grazing to hold the millions of livestock. The beef from the public lands is exported so not only are we subsidizing their revenue, we are paying for something we can’t eat.

    If your intent was to say how much revenue the ranchers are getting from our public lands, well done. BTW-have you read the two GAO reports that stated the livestock, not the horses, are ruining the ranges-particularly the riparian areas?

    ReplyDelete
  35. One thing at a time Vicki,<<<<<Since I am so uneducated, please enlighten me on how a Kentucky derby winner ended up on a plate. <<<<<
    Ferdinand was not exported for slaughter. He was exported for stud. It is really a moot point though because even if every piece of legislation you are asking for had been in place at the time it would have changed nothing about his export and ultimate demise. Keenland (that's one of top sales) yearling sales depend heavily on foriegn buyers are we going to turn them away and stop exporting thoroughbreds so one will never again be slaughtered in another county?

    ReplyDelete
  36. <<<<<If you were to ever meet any of these individuals in person, you would quickly find out that they couldn't carry on a simple conversation. It takes no talent or fortitude to hide, to second guess, edit, rework and then hit the send button but it is much more difficult to stand up, speak aloud and/or in person with confidence because you know the facts and the truth. This is a new phenomenon that the internet has created where the weak, meek and timid can hide behind cyber-bully personas when in reality they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

    Bless you guys for trying to educate the emotionally and intellectually challenged but you are seriously wasting your time; they are too busy pulling the wings off from flies and popping pimples to give a moment of serious thought, or consideration, to what you are saying. (They just can't, nor do they want to, see it. The truth sometimes hurts and in their case, it is devastating.)<<<<<

    Searching vainly for an intelligent thought a big ole pair of brsss balls in all that.
    You just stop in to ride on the comments of John and Vicki and bully us? Oh shit that's what you were accusing me of wasn't?
    You're so funny, I mean most great minds are a real bore to lil'or ole buckle bunnies like me...
    damn this is easy, no thought, no research, just hit send...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Next and only because it's late and I don't have to look anything up to back my position only apply a little logic and basic economics.

    <<<<<<<If your intent was to say how much revenue the ranchers are getting from our public lands, well done.<<<<<<<

    Revenue which they use to pay their taxes state and federal. Revenue used to support other business which also pay taxes state and federal. Revenue used to help those other businesses pay employees who also pay taxes state and federal. The BLM is supported by federal government who is supported by the tax payers. The revenue is recirculated and retaxed at every change of hand it doesn't just fall into a coffee can on the rancher's back forty.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think what the antislaghter folks fail to see is that: The kill buyer trys to find (riding,rodeo,ect.)homes for any usable horses therefore making more pofit off that animal. A horse with training, a horse that can be ridden or trained to ride(is not cripeled) has a chance to find a home.
    The(killer/unhomable)horses are going to unregulated slaughter plants,or rescuers (including hoarders,scammers, abusers).
    Rescues really do need to have a lisense and be regulated to operate . They need to have a limit on the number of horses they can take in per acre. Rescues should not be allowed to take in more horses if they are begging for resources for the ones they have. There are way too many horses in bad rescue situations (problems are neglect, starvation, overcrowding, etc.).

    Slaughter needs to be reopened in the U.S.-we can regulate it. Yes there needs to be changes made. Vet present to ensure the head is held steady as the captive bolt is delivered. There also needs to be a solution to the double decker trailers-the horses are riding in them all the way to mexico and canada wouldn't a shorter ride be more humane until a solution is came up with.

    maybe antislaughter folks do see but just don't care or maybe they fail to "get it."


    from the horses perspective-

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi, Vicki-I don't know about you, but I, for one, am tired of arguing about which group is in the best position. I just keep seeing how bad of a position the horses remain in, and wonder why so many people continue down the same path, getting the same results, and call it success. I guess I don't see where it benefits the horses. We've discussed the drugs, and the EU regulations before. I think you were involved in some of those discussions. What more would you like to say about the subject? Or do you think it's time to bring it up again? I do not agree that we are ignoring the drug issue, or that our abandoned horse "stories" are backfiring. I read the piece we're discussing again, and don't see any of the referenced information in it. Maybe that is in something else she wrote? My comment is on what is written here. I stand by what I said. I'm not sure if you want me to debate John on the accuracy of what Sue has said elsewhere. I wasn't at the meeting where she delivered her speech, so I don't know what she said. I'm willing to discuss anything, any time. I just am not sure what it is you want to talk about, since I wasn't at the event you have described. It's obvious that you have a strong disregard for Sue Wallis. She, however does not represent everyone on "our side" Looking ridiculous? Sure, we know how that is. All we have to do is take a look at the Anti Slaughter people who pose as Rescues and Abuse, Neglect, and Kill horses, and we know how it must feel.Or those people who threaten death to people who are not on the Anti Slaughter side. They must be more than just an embarrassment for you, but those people do not represent all of the Anti Slaughter side. It's easy to lump everyone into the same category if you are a small minded person. Hopefully, most of us are not. Personally, I don't really know everything Sue Wallis has said or done. I might agree with it all, maybe not. I agree with what has been posted here. I keep hearing about winning and losing. When I open a newspaper, or turn on the T.V., or log onto the internet, and see how things have changed for the horses, then someone is winning. It hasn't happened yet. I suspect the reason for that is the egos of those who want to win. That's too bad. I can tell you how a Kentucky Derby Day winner with excellent training and bloodlines ended up on a dinner plate. He became an unwanted horse. In an industry that starts them way too young, uses them up quick, and has little or no use for them after they stop earning, that training, and those bloodlines mean little if they stop earning the cash. Anyone even a little familiar with the racing world knows that. A shame? Certainly, but don't look to the Thoroughbred Industry to do much about it. You can talk about the AQHA and the greed drive as much as you want, the Thoroughbred Industry is just as dirty. Make no mistake about it. I agree about the bloodlines and training. Right now, with the market in the toilet, anyone can breed. Good breeders are educated in genetics, bloodlines, conformation, and temperament. Remove the good breeders, and you have the ones who will breed anything. Should the market ever revive, there won't be a decent horse to own. Training is almost a thing of the past. It takes time and money to put a good handle on a horse, and with the market being what it is, it's not worth it any more. But it's the only edge we've got right now. The concern over non horse owners involvement in this issue is a valid one. It's one thing to empathize with the issue, completely another to understand the scope of the industry by having daily involvement in it. We are seeing daily the negative impact that those who do not own horses themselves have had on this issue. We have good cause to be concerned. Speaking of no response, do you have any to any of the questions I asked?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Oh, just one more that requires almost no input
    <<<<<<Oh, Sue has just outdone herself. She asked that people boycott a dead woman (Bea Author).<<<<<<<

    Of course Bea Arthur's estate is not at all benifited by syndication royalties.Those royalties are not all affected by viewer or fan base.

    I have never really understood the celebrity following thing anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I sorry but I do not think that owning or not owning a horse has anything to do with anyone caring about horses and the cruel and inhumane treatment they receive when they go to slaughter. Why does a person have to own a horse to be able to care about them? I do not see that as an issue. You can't know what a person knows or doesn't know. Maybe a person has just read a lot about horses or attended many clinics. There is nothing that says they can't go to these places if they are interested in horses. That is just another stupid argument to lessen someone’s contributions here or on the subject. I know many people who know more about horses then those who own them. You don't seem to have an answer to stop the cruel practice of slaughter either. Its all about money always is and always will be. The only way that slaughterhouses will make money and stay in business is if stupid people rise for slaughter. Even if all the wild horses went to slaughter right now they will run out of horses in less then one year, then what? Rising for slaughter, not unwanted horses, is what horsehaters are hoping for. They are just giving out this smoke screen on the unwanted horse argument.

    And one more thing. How do you expect to regulate a business like horse slaughter? Carvel was the state of the art plant and horses still were butchered alive and babies were born on the kill floor. Its the type of business that hires people who don't give a crap about the animals and it will not change no matter what rules are in place. Money talks all over!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hey folks,

    Its been swell, but R.T. is right, further discussion is not likely to get either of us anywhere.

    I will just leave you with one comment about the horse world. According to the AHC, American horses generate $1.4 billion dollars a year in business. Every one of you who earns a living in this business gets a piece of this.

    Then you want us to believe you have to sell the horses that paid your income to slaughter when they are used up. And for how much? A mere $30-40 million a year. That is less than 3 cents on every one hundred dollars they earned you.

    But allow me to leave on a word of agreement with RH2. He pointed out that Sue did not speak for everyone on your side of the fence and that we have some people on our side who can be a bit irrational too. That is unfortunately very true. We just try to keep them from pretending to lead us!

    ReplyDelete
  43. RH2, you are correct. The issue isn’t who is in a better position. A speech was posted that does not have accurate information. If you are going to sing the praises of her speech and use that as an example, then you need to call out that a major issue with US horses going to slaughter is the drug issue which is glaringly missing from all of her communications. She is a self proclaimed spokesperson for slaughter and as such, she should be addressing all the issues surrounding slaughter and explain why ranchers and horse owners don’t want a tracking system but want to send horses to slaughter that can’t be certified. That is not an unreasonable request. The EU has recognized the issue and they own the market.

    Wallis just sent out another gem of an email stating all the problems are because the slaughter option is gone. How can you not keep quiet with that one? Perhaps she would like to tell the 134,059 American horses that were slaughtered that the slaughter option is gone.

    What you posted is what she delivered at the meeting. I have nothing against Wallis on a personal basis. We have had quite a few email exchanges but as a spokesperson, who is going to take anyone seriously when they rant about boycotting celebrities and make up emotional information as she goes along? Doesn’t that sound like the typical PETA crazy that all of you accuse us of being? I personally think it’s despicable they way they are using Native Americans. Absolutely despicable.

    The difference with the bad rescues you mentioned, is they are not spokespeople for our side. When we find out about one of them and have the facts, we expose them. We immediately send alerts to our groups so if anyone is supporting them, they know what has been uncovered. At times, we are under gag orders because of an ongoing investigation but as soon as we are allowed to go public, we do so. If someone is doing something wrong, committing fraud or abusing animals, they should be reported to the authorities. That goes both ways. Don’t condemn a rescue and not condemn people that abandon and neglect their animals. I don’t care if they are for or against slaughter, they are breaking the law and should be reported. Remember, if the owner had taken responsibility for their horse, he wouldn’t have ended up at a rescue.

    I’m not sure where you’re getting the non-horse owner info. We have thousands in our group and I would say less than 5% of them don’t own a horse but many sponsor horses or volunteer at rescues. Most own multiple horses. Our spokesperson, John owns 12. Don’t assume because someone is against slaughter that they don’t own a horse.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ok here we go again with the money thing... I want to know how getting 1 or 200.00 for a horse is all about the money... when that horse cost more then 1,000.00 to just feed for one year. now I am talking about a good fat horse (yes I sold one just a few months ago 1100 lbs and got 212.00) That horse I sold had just cost me 1,500 in Vet bills on a colt he tried to kill... after what he put that poor colt through I did not care where he went or what happened to him but he was not going to stay here anymore and next time get the killing done. No he was not a good saddle horse because of a wire cut to a foot that left his right front with only half a hoof.. and for Hecks sake.. he sure the hell was not a PET... so off he goes...
    It is people like Lynn that have me worried and why i do the Anonymous... I do not need anyone showing up here and turning horses loose or burning down my house just because i do not believe the same as them... so well.. just get use to it.. and all you peoples that do not and have never owned a horse.. you just come on over here and take a walk around the pasture... lets see how long it takes for you to get run over or bit or kicked because you do not know what your doing unless it is done by the books... you know.. horses dont read books.. so they dont know that they are to act the way it says to act in a book...
    after rereading the blog again i see that john and Vicki need to read before they open the mouth that is on the front of their faces.
    So reread.. SLOW.. so you understand what is being said... FACTS...
    100,000 horses go to slaughter a year.. not just ONCE.. but last year.. but the year before and so on... so tell me.. why do you think that after one year there will be no more unwanted horses left in the world? OH YA what another country does with there unwanted horses is not for us to say.... so if someone here sales a horse i dont care what horse it is to someone in another country and that someone shipps that horse to slaughter.. how is it OUR falt? We did not have a say in it and it was not even know about for years after.... dang people.. GET A GRIP... if you know of a way to keep 100,000 horses a year fed and safe from a slow death at the hands of some FOB rescue then speak up.. but do not tell me that i can not breed my horses or that i have to geld my studs. I will not let the old blood lines die because you think that every horse needs to have a place on the sofa next to someone that really loves them, untill there is no more horses left because the only horses left to breed are the broom tail dink mustangs.
    I am Pro Horse because i believe that all horses should be cared for till its time has come to a end.. even if that end is to feed a family. I hate it every time i hear about a horse going to a rescue where there is 23 horses on less then 3 arc. or when i hear about that good old gal down the road where everyone just thinks she is something great and then finds the dead and starved horses right outside her back GLASS door.. or the 100+ lost because someone thought that horses can live on SAND... and had FOB's backing him all the way...I want to know of one Pro Slaughter place or person that has had dead or starved horses. There you go.. give ya something to do... lets see if you can find something like that on your computer.. I myself dont have time.. 30 horses takes up most of my time and family takes up all but a very little bit of it... but i will check back and see if you have found that little bit of info.

    ReplyDelete
  45. It seems you have your own little world out there Anonymous. By the way where do you live so I can come out there and burn down your house. What stupid remark! That is the stuff that keeps us from coming here. Why would I want to kill or cause harm to someone just because they are stupid and support pain and suffering to animals. I take offense to your remark. And I do have a horse and have had several and just rescued another one. So shut your face. You don't know what you are talking about except being cruel to animals.

    ReplyDelete
  46. M Thompson, you are correct. The rancher is taxed on his revenue. The objection is everyone’s tax dollars are used to subsidize his business but he makes the revenue. How can the rest of us get the federal government to subsidize our businesses? We have to pay tax on what we earn and our employees must pay tax but the government isn’t giving us tax dollars to subsidize our businesses.

    You missed the point on the Kentucky Derby winner. The fact is that you have a well trained horse that earned millions and ended up on a plate. There are countless stories like that and it all leads back to the owner not taking responsibility for his horse. I wouldn’t care if my horse was standing stud in Siberia. I would make damn sure he ended up back in my barn. I didn’t say the legislation would stop that and I didn’t say horses shouldn’t be bred in a foreign country. At least now, we have one organization that is watching the horses in Japan and when their stud careers have ended, if the owner doesn’t bring them back, he does. Just another situation where you have horses earning money and the owners not taking responsibility for them.

    ReplyDelete
  47. RH2, in an earlier post toward the top you challenged someone on the consumption of horse meat. I believe you are correct. Even if the legislation is passed, anyone could slaughter their horse and consume the meat. They just won’t be able to transport the horse to be slaughtered or sell the meat. I can’t even find any statutes (although many of us have said it is illegal, including me) that state you can’t sell or consume horse meat. I know there are a few states where it is illegal but I can’t recall the states. I know there are a few states that have older laws on the books. AZ and CA come to mind but I think there are 2 others. I think even with our law in IL – and I’d have to reread the law – it isn’t illegal to consume horse meat. It is very difficult to find older laws that went into effect before google! I have searched and searched and can’t find anything.

    You said I owed you some answers but I have read your posts and don’t see any that were addressed to me. Send ‘em through again and I will answer what I can.

    ReplyDelete
  48. All you folks posting with anonymous, could you at least use a fake name so we can address the correct anonymous????

    Anon, if the horse tried to kill a foal, I’m assuming you think he’s dangerous. If you took him to an auction, there is a chance that an unsuspecting owner bought him. Don’t you think the right thing to do would have been to euthanize him so he didn’t harm another horse or a human? We know how many horses are going to slaughter each year. Why don’t you tell us why? Is it because people like you won’t take the time to train them and say they are dangerous? Or is it because you don’t want to spend $300 to humanely end their life? Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to own or breed the horse? If you did the responsible thing, “some FOB” rescue wouldn’t get their hands on a horse you own. Nobody is telling you that you have to own a horse until he dies an natural death. If you can’t find a good home, then do the responsible thing and euthanize the horse. You chose to own the horse or breed the horse so don’t blame other people. It was your choice, not theirs. It is not their responsibility to care for your horse. If you don’t want the responsibility, then don’t own a horse. It is that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'm guessing R.T. is not your given name?:) But kudos to you for stepping up to the plate in this internet world of cowards to toss out a few insults. Does it really make a difference what our names are? What if I told you my name was Beth? Is it? Is yours really R.T? Or is it Bill, or Jim Bob? Is mine Mildred? That's the trick with the darn ol' internet-you just never know. And with this blog, we have a bit of a tough time getting some of the information we need to get if we don't have a bit of anonymity. I do hope you feel better assessing us as you did, though. I'm guessing you came here only to show us your prowess in the art of insult-well done:) Lynn, you can care about a horse without owning one. Attending clinics is great, reading is wonderful. Try owning a horse. Make the commitment. Spend the money, put in the time. Gain the knowledge, do the work. Then you'll really know. John-see ya on the next go round-glad we had some common ground this time. A few parting thoughts for you. If you own a horse, you're in "the business". R.T. seems to be a friend of yours. He appears to be rather rude. I won't comment further-you seem to be a fairly intelligent man, I'm sure you'll figure it out. America is a free country. I didn't elect Sue Wallis to be a spokesperson for anything, but I support her right to free speech, as I support even the rude comments some people make on here. Vicki, I went back and read what is posted here, and didn't read anything I disagree with. The information about the why of the legislation leading to the closing of the plants is correct. I agree with the rest of what she has written. We've discussed the drug issue before, and I imagine we need to continue discussing it. I think I may see where you are confused. I am not pro Slaughter. I am Pro Horse. I understand that Slaughter will exist, but I don't like it. I will work as hard as I can to decrease the numbers of horses that end up at the plants. I hope that one day we can say it doesn't exist, but I'm a realist, and that works for me. I don't get any e-mails from Sue Wallis. I'm pretty busy doing what I can to try to get the issues with these "Rescues" brought to light right now. I wonder if it's just a coincidence that all of them I've found to be Abusing, Neglecting, and allowing horses to die are Anti Slaughter. It bothers me the lack of action taken when information is given to the authorities. I would like to believe that what you state is true, however, I have learned first hand it is not. And I DO condemn the "Rescues". They are the standard we are telling others to look up to. If they can't live up to the standard, don't get involved in Rescue. I don't care how the horses came to them, once they take them, it is their responsibility to provide for them. I have never said that all Anti Slaughter people are non horse owners, but many are. I do like these conversations, but here's where I'm at. There are horses right now, suffering, starving, neglected. I'm worried about them. I continue to hear about how there are alternatives for them, yet I'm not seeing them pan out. I am seeing more and more "Rescues" accused of Abuse, neglect, killing horses, running them through sales, and scamming people. These are supposed to be the "Humane" alternatives to Slaughter. We can discuss the drug issue, and those who wish to can feel smug about calling us names and inferring that we're just too ignorant to "get it". Meanwhile, the amount of horses in need increases on a daily basis, the amount of homes seems to decrease, the number of quality Rescues seems to dwindle, there is still no answer, and we're still having the same old argument. I'm not sure anyone's really "getting it". But the horses continue to pay. I just can't feel really good, even after a swell battle of wits on here-not knowing that.

    ReplyDelete
  50. RH2, RT Fitch is an author and owns several horses. Just google his name.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'm not going to bother with that. Anyone who posts for the express reason of insulting isn't "google worthy". But thanks for the suggestion:)I was making a little joke. I'm pretty sure his mama didn't name him "R.T."

    ReplyDelete
  52. "...Next and only because it's late and I don't have to look anything up to back my position only apply a little logic and basic economics..."

    Well, I'm pretty sure that little gem of a quote says it all. And what if your "little" logic is just that, little? What if your basic economics is really not economics at all, but some fast-food drive through window approach? Knowledge takes time and patience. But please don't bother to slow down. When you make unsubstantiated claims, cling to ridiculous opinions, utilize faulty logic all to maintain that a prehistoric, cruel practice is good for the horses, our economy, etc then you help us in a left handed way. Keep up the good work.

    Yes Mr. Fitch, it is surely a waste of time.

    D. Masters

    ReplyDelete
  53. D. Masters- What do you feel these type of comments accomplish? Much care is taken to point out that the Anti side is so much better, well informed, smarter, yet between you and R.T., it seems the only education you've gained is in the art of insult. I'll reserve my reply on how well you're doing-it really doesn't serve the purpose. Tell me, D.-what is good for the horses right now, today? I have witnessed more Abuse, Neglect, pain and suffering at the hands of those who claim to be Anti Slaughter than I thought possible for these animals to endure. Yet you wish to make fun of us, point out that "Slaughter Sue" is a victim of flawed thinking, as we all are, and that we MUST continue to discuss the DRUG ISSUE. We can and will discuss the drug issue, if you'd like. But while many seem to have a hyperfocus on the singular issue of Slaughter, some of us are seeing what continues to go on as you fight that fight. What's the answer, D.? Right now, what do you propose to do to at the very least alleviate some of the suffering? If they're not making the trip on the truck, is it somehow okay for them to endure horrific treatment? I think that some of the practices being utililed right now, by those who are just horrified by the idea of that captive bolt are not only inhumane, but revolting by the very nature of those who inflict them. No one seems to care to address this, or really do anything about it. Horses are shuffled like cards, and no one seems worried. But, hey-they're not on the truck. Any thoughts, D.?

    ReplyDelete
  54. I'll make one final comment.

    When presented with facts and credible debate points the proslaughter side shifts to "how can we solve the problem?" You DMasters, Tobin, et al never give solutions.

    Sorry, we give them all the time and they are usually the same tiresome points.

    (1) Know your horse, (2) know your market, (3)breed responsibly and (4) when you can't sell, humanely euthanize.

    Your last post is nonsensical and all over the map. Why? Because I suspect that you do not possess the brain power to evaluate a situation, facts, opposing views and just gotta have paid for slaughter.

    "...Right now, what do you propose to do to at the very least alleviate some of the suffering?..."

    What a moronic statement. You've been told repeatedly. If you don't know, I can't help you. That's right...I'm insulting because you either can't respond effectively or are frustrated by propositions that counter your vanguard that paid for sluaghter is necessary, not cruel, yahduhyaduh......

    And continuing HCHS does not alleviate suffering. It just shifts it to someone else at a profit peddling dangerous meat to humans.

    Politely put, you are an idiot (you've tried my patience for too long) that probably owns animals and guns, votes, drives a vehicle and procreates. Sorry, but as Ron White puts it: "You can fix ugly, but you can't fix stupid."....here's your sign.

    Good luck on your life path because you and anyone associated with you is going to need it. I'm done pissing into the wind and outta here.

    D. Masters

    ReplyDelete
  55. Rh2, for years we have been saying address the cause. Slaughter is a symptom, not a cure. The very fact that you have stated that horses are suffering is proof positive that slaughter is not the answer. There is nothing stopping anyone from sending their horse to slaughter. Slaughter is not controlling the population nor does it end suffering. The proof is right in front of you. If slaughter was the answer to excess horses, neglect or abandonment, there wouldn’t be any. Nothing has changed other than where they are being killed. Same auctions, same kill buyers. But we are all uneducated, non-horse owners that don’t have a clue.

    Slaughter proponents did nothing to address the cause when the plants closed and now it’s almost one year since the EU announcement on drug enforcement and what are they doing, still calling for slaughter and not addressing the cause. You have Wallis’ whining for money so she can lobby. How about taking that money and start a euthanasia fund? How about supporting a rescue? How about educating their supporters on responsible breeding? Nope. Just keep killing the horses. That will fix everything.

    How about contacting the AVMA, AAEP and NRA and broker some deals for low cost euthanasia and disposal? You have three industries that would welcome more business and you keep the money in the US instead of Belgium. We have suggested that to numerous so called “leaders” on the slaughter side but they don’t want to even discuss it. If the answer isn’t slaughter, go away. I think if the head of the AQHA called these organizations they would work with them. QHs are the leading breed going to slaughter. Work a deal and you have almost 50% of the excess horses taken care of. That is just one solution. The NRA has already stated that they could easily handle the amount of horses going to slaughter.

    Horses are slaughtered every day in the US for non human consumption. The difference is you have to pay for it. So even if human consumption slaughter ends, you can still have your horse slaughtered. But it’s not about slaughtering the horse. It’s about getting paid to dump their horse. It’s like asking the garbage collectors to pay you for picking up your trash. Why on earth would you pay people to dump their horses and expect them to breed responsibly? Don’t you think if they need slaughter to run their business when their business is with a non food animal that there is a problem?

    I see two issues for the suffering you are seeing.


    1) The owners don’t want to send their horses to slaughter

    2) We all know that the amount of horses slaughtered is based on the demand for horse meat, not the amount of horses available. If we are slaughtering over 100,000 horses and there are still excess horses, there is only one answer. You are producing more horses than there is a demand for. Plain and simple, supply and demand 101. The tanked economy is worldwide. Horse meat is a luxury item and the demand is starting to decrease. That means less horses are needed which is going to cause more excess horses.

    My question is how is that the fault of horse welfare advocates? Why is it our responsibility to fix what the slaughter houses and their supporters have caused? We haven’t ended slaughter. We aren’t causing excess horses. We don’t control the demand for meat. We aren’t the folks that refuse to humanely euthanize our animals. We aren’t the folks that want to keep breeding and dumping.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Work on Wall Street? AIG, CitiBank, ring a bell? Exhorbant CEO bonuses paid by taxpayer bailout so banking will not lose the talent of those ran their bankrupcty? I could name GM and Chrysler too but at least lthey actually manufacture something.

    I have been to the circus and I have seen the clowns .....The Advocate, the Guard and the Force of the Horse
    December 24, 2009 R.T. Fitch 8 comments
    written by R.T. Fitch (12/24/2009), author of “Straight from the Horse’s Heart“
    “In reality the horses call me Grey Mane so if you need a name you can call me G.M. for short.”

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    For the extended version please refer to the always cutting edge, fact oriented, new breaking, only the absolute truth, no fiction EWA website. Better known as R.T. Fitch, yes that's one, the poster of the most waste of space comment in this discussion, Vicki Tobin, and John Holland.
    No big picture coalition we don't get, no smoking gun of the masses.

    Maybe if you ask real nice Willie will write a "throw momma from the train" verse for you.

    BTW Vicki, here are the statics for the percentage of beef exported in 2008. Exports Percentage of Beef 26,790 million pounds produced 1,725 million pounds exported 6.44% of the total U.S. beef production is sold for export. What do suppose the odds are the entire 6.44% was raised on public land so you got eat absolutely none of it?

    http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Meat-Estimates---Exports-As-Percentage-Of-Production/2008-08-12/Article.aspx?oid=582323

    While you're bitching about subsidies and GAO studies about the terrible destruction of cattle on the public land maybe you would like explain away this little comment from Erick Campbell a BLM Biologist who retired in 2005 made in an Audobon magazine article:
    http://audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0609.html
    Although we can find $40 million annually to keep an alien on perpetual welfare, we invest only $74,472 a year trying to keep the average threatened or endangered species from going extinct. Such are the priorities of the American public. His referring to the mustangs and their impact on other wildlife habitat at the time. We ran it in a blog some time ago but you weren't here because there was no slaughter debate and without the slaughter drama it doesn't fit your agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  57. m.j./iwantpeopletoknowmelikertfinchJanuary 27, 2010 at 6:39 PM

    Oh John, don't go. I was just getting the finishing touches put on researching the army remount program, the Indian wars, open range ranching culture, the shift to modern ranching methods, the closing of the remount forts and mechanizing of the army. How all this figures into why Sue is not saying we didn't have free roaming horses before WWII but that we didn't have a problem with managing them. It alos kind of dovetails into the preformance pedigrees of not only the mustang (not that mustangs have pedigrees) but at least 4 modern breed associations. Very intereting reading, most of I thought an astute horseman such as yourself would at least have a "gee that kind of sounds familiar knowledge of". See that's why I had such a hard time grasping where you got the "rewriting history statements. I really had to stop and think "how did you get to those ideas". Then I understood....you haven't the first friggin clue about the history of the horse, ranching, or the army in the settlement of the west. Know what, I think I'll make that a whole blog so ya'll come back now ya hear?

    I researched so I promise to do better than:

    (1) You needed a translator;
    (2) You can't read;
    (3) Wait to get fed the silage;
    (4) Don't have a real time clue with anything regarding life.
    (5) Internet Emmy quest/low hit counter.

    I vote for all of the above.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<

    ReplyDelete
  58. Excuse me...one more post.

    m thompson....here's your sign. One more speed bump idiot on the road of life.

    Stupid. The gift that keeps on giving with children, companion animals, voting, equines, marriage. caring for the disabled and elderly, gun control, government accountability, health care, jobs, food safety, yahduhyahduh.

    Promise.. last post. Seriously...can't handle the lack of intelligent debate or discourse.

    D. Masters

    ReplyDelete
  59. Horses are slaughtered every day in the US for non human consumption. The difference is you have to pay for it. So even if human consumption slaughter ends, you can still have your horse slaughtered. But it’s not about slaughtering the horse. It’s about getting paid to dump their horse. It’s like asking the garbage collectors to pay you for picking up your trash. Why on earth would you pay people to dump their horses and expect them to breed responsibly? Don’t you think if they need slaughter to run their business when their business is with a non food animal that there is a problem?
    <<<<<<<<<<
    Personally Vicki, I don't need slaughter to run my business but I don't want to see horses in the same boat as the designer dogs and cats of this country that's worse than slaughter. If one of the top rants you can come up with is "the public doesn't understand they may be selling their horse to slaughter" isn't that a problem? And here we are Vicki back on the same circular path....I realize it isn't about horses dying. I've figured out that really isn't what you care about a long time ago.

    Here's the question you, EWA, D. Masters, R.T. or T.R. whatever will still not answer for me. I have been asking if for five years too. It dovetails into your horses are companion animals theory to so I can't understand why you don't jump at it. Here is the million dollar or should I say 100,000 horse question.

    If the floor of slaughter is the cause of irresponsible breeding why do we still have a pet population problem? There has never been a floor on the market there? People still breed them responsibly or not. Why will horses be any different and obviously they aren't since you are proposing the same options for them in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Well D. way to go resorting to name calling. Vicki, RT, John... You may think your insults, name calling and general rude behavior bothers those of us it is directed at but you couldn't be more wrong. It just shows your lack of intelligence as do your stupid comments about American history, beef exports, equine drug use, etc...
    You all are our best weapon in the fight against anti-horse people/anti-slaughter.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Well RH2, Rh1, R2D2, Ranch Manager, Inagodadivia..whatever or whoever you are, when you can suck it up and put your "Big Boy" pants on and fess up to who you are I will address you. But while you hide behind "handles" and false names I have no time for you.

    Being that I am an honest, fully transparent, equine advocate please feel free to contact me directly at RT@RTFITCH.COM. (It's my real name! In the United States we communicate this way)

    True Americans don't hide behind pillow case masks and bed sheets, legally that is.

    ReplyDelete
  62. m Thompson, in answer to your million dollar question, the dogs and cats you speak of are euthanized, they are not slaughtered. The owners don’t get paid to dump their dogs and cats. They too transfer their responsibility to others but they don’t get paid to do it. And their meat is not sold to unsuspecting human consumers.

    There are feral dog and cat populations in many communities. They have multiple litters, not one kitten or one puppy unlike horses that have one foal per year. Big difference in numbers. Humans do not control their breeding. If you want to equate dog and cat breeding to horse breeding then use the example of puppy mills. You can compare them to quarter horse breeders, the puppy mill of the equine industry. In both cases, they breed and breed and breed and what they can’t sell, they dump. And then breed and breed more. And if you notice, more and more puppy mills are being shut down every day with the owners facing abuse and neglect charges. The only difference with horse breeders, and I’m sure there are exceptions is that their horses are not living in deplorable conditions. Most are well taken care of until they are two or three and can’t be sold. Then they want to dump them only they are not humanely euthanized, they are butchered alive. And the owners are paid to do this.

    I would suggest you research the cattle leases on public lands and then come back here and tell us the beef is sold to Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Ranch Manger, you can find the documentation on the beef exports for public land cattle that backs our “stupid” comments. You can get it by going to the BLM site and researching. It will take you days and days because the BLM site is not easy to navigate and it is not all in one place but if we found it so can you. Regarding the “stupid” comments on drugs, go to the FDA site and you will find the “stupid” documentation on prohibited substances, by the “stupid” veterinarians. Contact the EU and you will get the same “stupid” regulations. Contact the CFIA and you will get the same “stupid” regulations.

    Do you find the facts “stupid” or are we “stupid” because we posted them? Or are you saying the government sources that issued the regulations are “stupid”?

    If it’s the “stupid” facts you don’t want posted then have a statement in 48pt font at the top of the blog that says only anti-horse posters welcome. You can then have all the smart comments like only the old and dangerous are sent to slaughter. The slaughter option is gone (never mind that 134,059 horses were slaughtered). Abandoned horses are overrunning the streets. The wild horse population is out of control (just ignore the millions of livestock). None of our horses are given medications. M Thompson can ignore the GAO reports and blame the horses for ruining the public ranges. And on and on. You can call us stupid, non horse owners, pat yourselves on the back and just have a hell of time.

    And, please, don’t ask John and I for our input if you don’t want it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. m Thompson, in answer to your million dollar question, the dogs and cats you speak of are euthanized, they are not slaughtered. The owners don’t get paid to dump their dogs and cats. They too transfer their responsibility to others but they don’t get paid to do it. And their meat is not sold to unsuspecting human consumers.>>>
    No shit Vicki. That was the point. They don't get paid and yet they are still iresponsible, uncaring or whatever else you would label them if the animal was a horse and money was involved. And gee guess what, even though there is no money in it for them it still happens. It has not forced them to be any more responsible than taking away the option of horse slaughter is going to force certain horse owners to be more responsible or more employed or anthing else.

    ReplyDelete
  65. D. Masters, Somehow, I expected no more from you. I suppose you're feeling pretty good about yourself right about now. You're probably thinking you've really put me in my place with your sharp and witty reply, and can now move on and do what you do best. I'm sure I've tried your patience. I've asked you to move beyond your pat answers on what should be done, and you seem upset about that. Sorry, D. Have you missed the point that many on the Anti Slaughter side are causing pain and suffering to the horses in the name of the greater good? or are you too busy thinking up your next witty repsones?

    ReplyDelete
  66. No, Ranch Manager, you missed the point. Just imagine how many more would be dumped if they got paid to dump them.

    There are animals owners that will be irresponsible. Neglect, Abuse and abandonment have nothing to do with the availability of slaughter. You could open 100 plants and they are still going to abuse, neglect and abandon their horses. You are seeing it now. There is nothing stopping them from sending their horses to slaughter. The largest horse abuse case in US history happened in 2005 when all plants were in operation. You make excuse after excuse for them. They chose to own a horse. Why do you want to pay them for overbreeding? Every time they dump the excess horses, they go right back to breeding more. And then you take those off their hands, pay them and then they breed more.

    We just received the export stats from Canada and horse meat consumption to the export countries is down. That means they are going to be slaughtering less horses. And since nobody on the anti-horse side wants to address the cause of excess horses the issue will get worse. They will only slaughter the number of horses they need for the demand. They do not slaughter the amount of horses available. They are not providing a disposal service. They are running a market driven business and if the market is down, you are stuck with all the excess horses you refuse to address. Do you think anyone in their right mind is going to invest $6M in a plant with the demand declining and legislation always pending that could shut them down at any time? The Belgians have already walked away.

    We have been saying the same thing for years. Go read the old blogs and comments. Our words are the same today as they were years ago. For years, you laughed and said we were nuts about the drugs. Oops, the EU won’t take horses with drugs. Old and dangerous. Oops, that was proven wrong by Temple Grandin. Long transports to foreign countries, oops, all the violations occurred within US borders. Mustangs can’t go to slaughter. Oops, let’s start calling them feral. Slaughter is humane euthanasia. Oops, the bolt doesn’t work on horses so let’s ask for “humane” slaughter plants. We need horse meat for pet food. Oops, US pet food hasn’t contained horse meat since the 80s. Scare tactics like if the bills pass you won’t be able to transport your horse across the street. We are trying to change the cultures of other countries. We are all tree hugging vegans trying to bring down agriculture. The list goes on and on. You don’t have one stand that has been consistent throughout the years. Every year it’s a new lie or scare tactic.

    If you tell the truth, have some facts you don’t have to keep making up new scare tactics and be constantly back-peddling. If you don’t want to get serious and address the cause, then quit complaining about the stockpile of excess horses that your side is responsible for building. The economy isn’t getting any better and it’s obvious that you can’t slaughter your way out of the mess.

    ReplyDelete
  67. RH2’s comment to D. Masters of spinning the suffering to us, is a stellar example. Keep shifting the blame to everyone but the owner while their irresponsibility and your refusal to address it, is adding to growing number of excess horses. That is a great plan and you should be proud of how well it’s working.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Boy, it's been busy here. I can see it's winding down, and all some of you are leaving now, but I'll make my comments anyhow, since some statements were addressed to me, and some are just silly. Calling people idiots because they don't share your views? And your patience is tried by a few comments on a blog? I'd hate to see you have a really tough day:) This is just a discusion, D., calm down a bit. If I read your comment correctly you have a problem with people who own animals, and guns. You also dislike people who drive and vote. And you're not happy with those who have children. Whew! I'm trying to imagine what your "friends" circle on your cell phone is like:) You must like Jeff Foxworthy, though. Vicki, we've had this conversation before, you probably just don't remember it. I have agreed that Slaughter has nothing to do with the amount of neglect and abuse that goes on. I've slawys said that. My issue is that when you are holding Rescue up as an alternative to Slaughter and those Rescues are Abusing Neglecting and Killing horses, and those Rescues are operated by Anti Slaughter people, you have a problem. You would like to continue to state I am shifting the blame to everyone but the "owner". I fnd it completely ridiculous that a Rescue would take in horses, Abuse, Neglect, and in some cases kill them, and then blame someone else. It's about time those who have these horses took the responsibility for what hapens to them. THEY ARE THE OWNERS. If you truly believe this is simply a manner of owner irresponsibility, I don't know what I can say to you. In closing, although there is much more to comment on, R.T. Fitch's comment about "True Americans" was the highlight of my day. For the record, I've never used a pillow case or a bed sheet except for sleeping-which is legal. I'm glad we had this discussion. these comments are just the type that represent the personalities I find so fascinating. R.T. and D., may I have your permission to copy some of your comments and send them along in my next letter to my Reps? I think they would find them enlightening, as I have.

    ReplyDelete
  69. RH2 (who we all think is RH1 and Ranch Manager - it's hard to hide writing styles), I must commend you on following the anti-horse handbook. Of all the discussion on this thread, the one topic that wasn't discussed - or if it was, it was barely mentioned - you chose to end by changing the topic to rescues. Just amazing.

    Just curious. Why do you have so much rage at the few bad rescues and hold them accountable as owners but don't hold the owner responsbile for he horse ending up at a rescue, accountable?

    Always transferring the blame speaks volumes.

    ReplyDelete
  70. OH Vicki you are so mistaken about us on all counts. The "anti-horse" name is ridiculous and those who know us or have read more than one or two of our blog posts get a big laugh out of it.
    If you read any of the posts here you would see that we feel all owners should be held 100% responsible for their own horses, rescue organizations and "sanctuaries" included. You know nothing about any of us here yet you pretend to. It would be just too much rocking of your own little world to see the truth.
    Thanks for the complement of saying I'm the same person as RH1 and 2 (RH stands for ranch hand). I got to name myself the manager because I hardly write at all, just "manage" the blog.
    So far I have learned nothing of importance or usefulness from you. You are long winded and say a lot of nothing but insults and name calling and opinions.
    I'm moving on from this post now. There is a more current post, and I need to post the next piece as well.
    Thanks for joining in, you are welcome to take part in any thread.

    ReplyDelete
  71. So glad that you haven't learned anything. All of us expected as much. And who is in their own little world? It is your choice to ignore what is right in front of you. Sorry we wasted your time.

    We will not be posting on your other thread. That has already been disptued in several papers and articles. But you and your alters can have fun posting to each other and saying how wise and wonderful the rhetoric is while the excess horses continue to be produced.

    Have a good weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Our stupid comments on drugs have been validated.

    The CFIA has posted the regulations on their site that will go into effect on July 31. Horses that have received prohibited substances (Bute,etc.) cannot be slaughtered.

    ReplyDelete
  73. RH2-R2D2 or something like thatJanuary 30, 2010 at 11:17 PM

    Hi again, Vicki. I'm not sure if I've already posted or not:)(Sorry, couldn't resist).I am one of those people who believe that the person in possession of the horse is the owner. It makes no sense to me to utilize your logic. How far back do you go? If a horse is for example 10 years old, and has been sold several times, which owner is responsible? The last one? The one before? The original one? I'm the owner of my horses. It doesn't matter who they belonged to before I got them. Once I bought them, I became responsible for their care and well being. I know, it's a crazy concept, but it's worked out well for the horses. I don't have "rage" against the rescues that Abuse, Neglect, and Kill horses-well not any more than I have over anyone else who does. I would call it more frustration at the lack of concern of others. Everyone on "your side" is so intent on worrying about the EU regulations, and the captive bolt, yet when horses are starved to death, neglected, and abused, you don't seem to want to discuss it. And long as the Rescues are in the "minority" I guess it's okay. I have found it to be happening more and more often. It bothers me when I contact the authorities who are supposed to help, and they just aren't interested. It bothers me more when I contact those on "your side" who claim to care about the horses, and they don't even respond. It bothers me to know some of those horses right now are starving. I think that's a pretty inhumane way to die. And the fact that it is at the hands of those who are Anti Slaughter is unacceptable to me. On one hand you want to blame the economy for the Equine market, but when those who own horses find themselves in a position where they can no longer afford them, you call them irresponsible, and find them at fault if they give them up. So, let's blame them. Now what? Shall we find them? Prosecute them? What's the master plan? They'll still be unable to afford them. It's always simple to say if you can't afford them, don't have them, but there are an awful lot of people who never dreamt they would be in the situations they have found themselves in now. If they can't care for their families, and have lost their homes, they surely can't keep their horses. Many breeders HAVE cut back. We've discussed all of this before. Slaughter is neither the cure all nor is it the root of all evil. It is an option-nothing more, nothing less. No one is shocked about the drug regulations. We discussed that also, and talked about them going into effect in July. We also discussed the possibility of another market opening with these regulations being in our future. We've heard some have already pulled horses strictly for this market, and they will test clean. Because there will be a demand for clean horses, there should be a better price. I think we can see where this may go. I think it's kind of funny that all of you think one person is posting as several people. Do you guys get together and have regular meetings or something? I can't speak for the rest of my personalities-or maybe I can-but I'll miss all of the witty replies if you all choose to stop posting. I can't decide which of my new friends I liked more-D. of R.T. I think it was D., though-he sure had some zingers:)

    ReplyDelete
  74. This post was about wallis' paper, not rescues. I thought the purpose was to discuss the drivel in her paper. I am more than willing to discuss rescues but I didn't think this was the appropriate thread.

    I don't understand your comments on who the owner is. I agree, whoever is the current owner is responsible for their care. But if you are sending the horse to slaughter, who owned the horse since the horse was born, is very important. Without knowing that and what medications each owner gave the horse, you cannot certify the horse is free of prohibited substances and cannot send the horse to slaughter. If you are talking about why the horse ended up at a rescue, then only the current owner is applicable unless the horse was seized and coming from someone providing temporary foster care. Then the owner at the time the horse was seized is responsible for the horse.

    Better think about that market. Horse meat demand is down about 20% and Italy is looking at banning slaughter and the sale of horse meat. Their imports are down significantly. France is down about 12%. Raising horses for slaughter still isn't going to solve anything. You still have the breed and dumpers and irresponsible that won't be able to certify the horses. Most folks don't plan on sending their horses to slaughter (other than the breeders) so when they want to dump them quickly as they have been, they won't be able to. No more race horses coming off the track to slaughter.

    I guess the anti-horse folks were lying to us when they said nobody would raise a horse for slaughter because there is no money in it.

    You are dreaming if you think the slaughter houses are going to pay more for clean horses. Natural Valley Meats suffered a $42M loss and that's when the US horses were flowing freely into Canada.

    Just keep trying to think of ways to keep slaughter going instead of addressing the issue. That's working just great for you, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Twitter is but one social site that may leverage the marketing methods of many web marketers, to gain success in
    online business. In fact, real Twitter followers help you
    achieve your business goal in no time without making a hole in your pocket.
    Basically, why would anyone would want to follow Twitter when the tweets decline in value.


    My web blog - Buy cheap Twitter Followers

    ReplyDelete
  76. The effects of the abuse may be obvious to the person. Because
    the civil laws in particular have developed over hundreds
    of years, they have become highly complex.
    Most of these small independent stores were successful and very
    much part of the fabric of every American community.


    Here is my weblog - Family Lawyers Melbourne

    ReplyDelete