agreed, but

Posted by Bitohoneylady on 11/29/2011, 10:22 am, in reply to " Laws are not made "
67.142.171.27

the President "can" pass laws that have passed for his signature. I was just pointing out that he can by signing a bill, making it law. Placerville CA

No but

Posted by Bitohoneylady on 11/29/2011, 10:43 am, in reply to "No, the President cannot make laws"
67.142.171.27

he can sign them into law, I was just pointing that out....geez. Guess I shoulda kept my mouth shut!~ Placerville CA

Ditto

Posted by Stranger in Paradise on 11/29/2011, 4:13 pm, in reply to "Actually, I just "unfriended" them"
72.14.90.94

I can only shake my head about their naive and one- sided view. And their followers....don't get me started!

I don't think so... nm

Posted by equestrian57 on 11/29/2011, 3:55 pm, in reply to "Re: Horses plus, "
192.251.73.103

Its actually 30 days...

Posted by Guinny1 on 11/29/2011, 5:58 pm, in reply to "Re: Horses plus, "
184.8.116.27

And they usually euthanize MOST stallions immediately. I unfriended them after they "saved" a horse recently that had an accident and the owner couldn't afford the bill. The relinquished the horse and all Horse Plus did was ask for donations. When asked why they wouldn't just allow the owner to keep the horse (not like they were actually out any money, I think it should have been the donors voted decision), they responded that if they wanted their horse back, they would have to be approved adopters and since they couldn't raise the funds (non-profit charge was $1500, you know the retail was probably $3000) they would not pass their adoption process. Merry Christmas....it is more important to them to have a horse as the poster child to draw in more funds than it is for the horse to stay in a loving home. Yeah, freak accidents happen to all of us...it was pretty obvious the horse was cared for. I don't know, their self-righteous BS and perpetual spewage of riot inciting misinformation is too much. And yes, they do euthanize their horses after 30 days.

Re: I'm with you!

Posted by cricket on 11/29/2011, 5:44 pm, in reply to "I'm with you!"
64.77.199.210

I agree completely. And now we have owners letting horses starve or turning them loose. It happens ALL the time and EVERYWHERE. There are so many cases and they are not in the paper. Humane slaughter in the US is the appropriate thing to have available.

Ugg

Posted by AshlandEquestrian on 11/29/2011, 11:41 pm, in reply to "But the real problem is food safety"
71.34.245.43

The end consumer is so vulnerable!!! Those pics are heartbreaking!

To me its a humane treatment issue

Posted by WindDancerRanch on 11/30/2011, 1:55 pm, in reply to "But the real problem is food safety"
74.45.190.24

I hear the argument about drugs in the horse's system and just don't see a difference between what horses are treated with and cows, sheep, and pigs. Ivermectin, Bute, Banamine....the same drugs that are used on horses are used in other livestock. Withdrawl periods are known for horses I am sure since horses are slaughtered in Europe and had been here before. I bet we see these re-appear on packaging shortly. I know people can lie - they can lie with the other livestock too. The small amount of testing that is done for these substances does uncover them from time to time. More testing should be done and those who lie should be punished - and that applies to any animals slaughtered with forbidden drugs in their system. I would like to see three things change: 1. Make the process humane. I agree the current approach is not humane. I happen to think the slaughterhouses are not humane for cows, pigs, and sheep either so I refuse to send my animals there. But sticking to the topic of horses - they can and should be humane. It will slow down the process and cost more money. Good. It will require planning and redesign of the process. And it will require a species specific method of kill that will probably require a higher grade of "worker" to administer. Good. If I had my way they could only open plants (and the whole distribution system including transportation) that I agreed were humane. That being said I would still never send one of my horses there! 2. There should be a "safety net" for horses lucky enough to have had a person in their life who would "rescue" them from slaughter. Something like the slaughterhouse has to scan horses for a microchip and if they are registered in a safety net database pull them aside and contact the person who registered them there. It would have to be "fair" to the slaughterhouse too - the horse would have to be purchased back and its care/board covered. But the point is for those of us who don't want a horse we know slaughtered - even if situations have meant the horse was sold and not in our posession - then we have a way to provide the horse a safety net. It should be a point of pride for a horse breeder to have EVERY horse they ever bred registered in that database under their name. 3. Ranch butcher should be available for horses here like the knackers in Europe. A good, kind ranch butcher is worth his weight in gold. Mine is very humane with the pigs and lambs. He is a very good, careful shot and takes his time to get the right shot! I would trust him putting down a horse with a bullet (a method I believe to be more humane when properly done than the drugs). I cannot imagine a better way to put down a horse than in its own pasture/paddock/stall, calm in its surroundings, and next to the people it knows and trusts. Calm, happy, and then gone. If that service is paid for by the ranch butcher taking the "meat" then I would think a lot of people would choose this humane ending for their horse - even those folks that are heartless jerks who are currently sending their horses to kill auctions.

Well don't age me fast....

Posted by firejax1 on 11/29/2011, 10:29 pm, in reply to "That must have been a long time ago because it's sure not like that now"
76.21.52.112

Wasn't that long ago and the last time I checked I am pretty young!! :-). Honestly, only in the last 15 years have things gotten worse and like Tori said is in part due to regulations. At the end of the day though we are seeing too many horses that wouldn't have survived past the slaughter plants back then and our economy, industry and our resources can't support the overload. If we all got together, I am sure collectively we could come up with a humane way of fixing the problem. But right now all everyone does is fight and think their opinion is the only opinion. If vegetarians can co-exist cant we on opposite ends of the spectrum find common ground too that benefits the horse? I bust mine...so I can kick yours!!

It's All About Money

Posted by rosalita208 on 11/30/2011, 8:56 am, in reply to "That must have been a long time ago because it's sure not like that now"
208.121.88.92

Dave Duquette, president of the nonprofit, pro-slaughter group United Horsemen, said no state or site has been picked yet but he's lined up plenty of investors who have expressed interest in financing a processing plant. "I have personally probably five to 10 investors that I could call right now if I had a plant ready to go," said Duquette, who lives in Hermiston, Ore. He added, "If one plant came open in two weeks, I'd have enough money to fund it. I've got people who will put up $100,000."

Re: Not safety - humane treatment

Posted by Tori on 11/30/2011, 10:09 am, in reply to "Not safety - humane treatment"
107.24.34.168

And Indians probably feel the same way about how Americans consume beef. Temple Grandin has already pointed out that there isn't a humane way to harvest horses for meat. At least not following the existing methods that are in practice for other commercial critters. A new humane method would likely not be as efficient or otherwise effect the bottom line and horse slaughter is purely export profit driven. It isn't safe enough to use to solve domestic hunger problems loosen up your budgie smugglers http://snowyridge.blogspot.com Front Range, Colorado

Re: There are options, I don't understand why people get so set on one idea

Posted by equestqh on 11/30/2011, 3:49 pm, in reply to "There are options, I don't understand why people get so set on one idea"
216.31.250.82

Article didn't open. Of course there are options. But something so many of us forget is that most horse-related industries treat horses as any other livestock (i.e., cattle, pigs, sheep). As such, this IS a business to them and they want the option of making business choices. You and I may not like their options but at the same time, why not rail against vets for charging so much for the drugs and the drug companies for charging the vets so much and the rendering companies for charging such a high price to pick up the dead horse. Reduce these costs and euthanizing becomes a much more viable options for folks instead of the feedlots, or starvation or neglect. So don't single out the slaughter houses for their faults. Instead, lobby your representative to put funding back into the USDA to ensure regulation is being followed, to ensure proper training is being done, proper transportation and care on feedlots. No, I am not smarter than a 5th grader, but occasionally I am smarter than a 1st grader. Elk Grove, Sac County, CA (formerly of Palo Alto & EPA & yes, my horses had a better address than me-Woodside)

Link = blank page. ??? nm

Posted by pjc on 11/30/2011, 5:45 pm, in reply to "There are options, I don't understand why people get so set on one idea"
71.146.132.37

Support lawn order. Grow neat grass. Sunnyvale, CA

UC Davis plan

Posted by saddleup on 11/30/2011, 9:18 pm, in reply to "There are options, I don't understand why people get so set on one idea"
207.231.12.233

In the previousyear they were completley opposed to helping non profits with euth clinics and gelding clinics in 2009 they wrote a model that included the same things people had been begging them to do? They asked for donations for their plan but never actually did anything to start it. They are now finally doing gelding clinics for three times the cost of the meds and supplies , - it is students that pay to go there doing the work and teachers being paid to teach so why are they charging so much for their "low cost clinics"? . Wow, really generous of them

agree

Posted by wildhorse on 12/1/2011, 9:14 am, in reply to "I would much rather my tax dollars be used"
75.106.255.52

Estimated cost of this to US tax payers is 5 million a year, while small change compared to other items in the federal budget, this amount could fund a lot of gelding clinics, euth clinics and even horse rescue operations. Or be used to better enforce the border to keep the horses from going to Mexico. I don't agree with the policy of asking US Tax payers to subsidize irresponsible horses owners and breeders at a time when we are looking to reduce government spending.

Re: I would much rather my tax dollars be used

Posted by equestqh on 12/1/2011, 10:09 am, in reply to "I would much rather my tax dollars be used"
216.31.250.82

And used to feed the animals in zoos. And seriously, you think what we have in place for dogs and cats is a better way to go? 30 days (maybe) in a cage then euthanized? That is, if you have no health or physical or age issues (thus supposedly harder to adopt out) or are considered a "dangerous" breed. No, I am not smarter than a 5th grader, but occasionally I am smarter than a 1st grader. Elk Grove, Sac County, CA (formerly of Palo Alto & EPA & yes, my horses had a better address than me-Woodside)

$ of euthanasia

Posted by saddleup on 12/1/2011, 11:05 am, in reply to "I would much rather my tax dollars be used"

If we go by the rough number of horses sent to slaughter from the US each year and multiply by the cost to euth and dispose (going by what we at BITS project were charged for lowest cost euth cliic rate we could get of $150 that still is $15 million dollars a year. . We begged as best could and only got about $400 for donations over 3 years to all the euth and gelding clinics to help keep them going and pay for horse owners that couldn't afford it. It didn't even cover the insurance to hold them. Although I greatly appreciated the help it didn't go far to help and the lack of donations kills programs that rely on them - but my point is how can we convince tax payers to pay $15 million to put down horses when people who e believed in the clinics to help prevent suffering or ovrebreeding and those that beneifted from the program don't feel moved enough to donate ? Those bodies can't be used to feed animals safely . Why has no safe drug or method been developed to euth an animal and still be able to use the body to help zoo or shelter animals and relieve those programs? The argument that the horses smell the blood, slip on wet floors and know they are going to die always comes up . The kill box needs to be fixed and not the same as the messy processing floor , how hard could it be to make the kill box an area that is not bloody and have the actual process be far enough away it does not freak out the horses? All death is ugly , processing any animal is bloody and gorey and we hate to think of our personal horses being gutted out or strung up but if you believe animals have souls or that their spirit of who they were isn't in the body then it is just that ;an empty body. That is what it is if shot, euth'd or die or natural causes. If that empty body can go on to help another animal live and not have to be destroyed in an overcrowded shelter or can help zoos spend more of their budget on larger better facilities for the animals that are endangered then a great deal of good comes out of it instead of just worm food.

"Educated people in agriculture"

Posted by LovemyTB on 12/1/2011, 12:08 am, in reply to "The ones I heard were."
75.61.109.100

Interestingly enough, many people involved in agriculture support horse slaughter because they fear animal rights activists will go after other meat sources once they are finished with horses. It's no surprise that the cattle industry is in full support of horse slaughter. I'm not discounting the education of people calling in, but I don't think people in agriculture are an accurate cross section of the public. I run into people every day who don't even know that horse slaughter exists. I only know this because I board my horse at Stanford and get many compliments from non horse people about how beautiful my horse is. It blows them away when I tell them she was a day away from becoming steak in Europe. Save a life, adopt a slaughter-bound horse!

suggest you listen to the show online

Posted by M on 12/1/2011, 1:38 am, in reply to "The ones I heard were."
70.36.128.195

First - it was Gil Gross 2pm - you can go to hourly archives for 11/30 - 2pm His guest was Dave Duquette, president of United Horsemen. 7 callers: 2 men and 1 against > 1 pro ( thinks Canada's regulation for travel restrictions time is stupid. Can't be shipped when hot. His point was that they are going up there to die anyway); 1 against - David against (cut off for poor phone connection though he could be heard and understood), 5 women: 4 pro and 1 against ( she is a vegetarian and does not believe in killing animals.} One of the first callers was a man, David in Palo Alto, who wanted to make several points and asked to go thru them. His first point was all the medicine that the horses are given making them not safe to eat. He wanted to make more points but Gil picked up on the drug issue Gil said he never thought about that and went on for a while and then told the guy he had a bad phone connection and ended the call. Either, the guy had his radio on or did have an imperfect connection, but the caller could be heard and I would have liked to here his other points. Honestly, I question whether some of the callers were plants as they said the same thing - 4 out of 5 the ladies in favor of reopening - talking about the Mexico horse horror experience Saying that slaughtering was and will be a walk in the park in the US. The anti slaughter was a vegetarian and was against killing all animals. No mention of Ca laws and lack of enforcement that are responsible for the poor shipping conditions and for horses that are not fit to travel or that they will be killed for human consumption. One (Rene) said the videos of the Mexican plants show how inhumane they are. In US, killing was humane in 95% of plants. Horses were in better wgt by the time they entered US plants. Those going to Canada arrived in poor wgt condition. So the gist of it seems that the US experience is that horses are happy, getting in better condition, gaining wgt while awaiting the comfortable ride to arrive at the US processing plant and cross the rainbow bridge at the hands of kinder gentler dispatchers. Most of the callers said they are horse owners - not 'in agriculture' Most were women rather have the horses killed in the US to avoid the transport horrors and Mexican slaughter houses. (the assumption is that US plants were humane and well regulated)

Animal biproducts cannot be used in feed in the US

Posted by Cassandra on 12/2/2011, 5:59 pm, in reply to "Re: no market for it..."
70.134.73.173

That bill was passed when the first incident of BSE happened a few years ago. Canada, was behind the US on that legislation, that is why the last outbreak was from Canada. All dogfood/pet food must be USDA inspected fit for human consumption. All agricultural products not from the US should be looked at very critically. Other countries use pesticides/fertilizers/feed additives that have been outlawed for years in the US. Even when something is stamped "organic" and not from this country, it is not necessarily held to the same, if any standards that US grown/raised products are. That is just fact. No, I am not going to cite sources but if anyone wants to they can easily find them on the net. Chowchilla- Home of the best bakery in the world!