[Blistering Winds]

My BIGGEST Pet peeve on this piece of legislation and why AQHA, and other associations take a stand against it...

To amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.

Just removing the "slaughter issue" out....it is open to interpretation once in place....since our laws are "living and breathing".

Why has that statement not been removed?

What, I can't take my horse to the renderer anymore to put him down so I can donate his body to the Zoo?

Or can I not sell or donate my horse to the local zoo to feed the tigers, lions and bears (oh my).



The law, as written, is the BIGGEST thing that causes the uproar in the horse community. Put slaughter aside, the words written bring up the largest voice even with ANTI-Slaughter people when that statement is read.

And yes, that statement is PART of the law. Even though the majority is explained and detailed...that Other Purposes will get twisted....as it has already began in other laws and issues.

[Stormy'smom]

Originally Posted by Blistering Winds

Hey stormy's mom. it is unfortunate when you post something controvercial.... you WILL get opinions and debates....(arguments are nailed by the mods)

As to what "CAN" and "CAN"T" be on a thread....last I checked, it was a free country where this forum was created....and as long as they are within the rules...I have a right, and so does everyone else, to post our 'statements', which are usually opinions to begin with.

Hummmmmmm exactly! Which is what I posted! My opinion! And as usual, I get snapped at, only personally this time! It's only my opinion, so why are you getting your panties in an uproar about it? Did I somewhere in my post say, " hey Blistering"? NOPE! If I did, I would be glad to go back and fix it! Just point it out.

[Blistering Winds]

Stormy...not sure why you take things so personally. because there is nothing "personal" involved.

And last I checked..you are critisizing us for bringing our opinions to the post

Please please DO NOT turn this into an argument and over opinionated thread!!!!Did ya'll not read this part of pocahontas thread???

Then go right behind it and post your own. Then complain when someone makes reference to your statement. Hmm...


Anyways, I try not to have any "emotions" nor take things personally in threads as these. because they are heated, over-emotional on both sides. I recognize it and don't hold a darn thing toward anyone on it.

If you want to, So be it. I cannot tell you what you can or cannot do. But please, lets not be overly hypocritical at least.

I don't "BASH" anyone.

As for "over-opinionated". Me making a statement stating...I don't agree.....can be construde as over opinionated....so who's definition determines that? And I said something because the threads right above, weren't that opinionated to begin with....so honestly, bringing up pocahontas's very broad, bold statement was unneccessary. But then again, who determines what is necessary and unnecessary........

[Sandra-A1]

In California, where horse slaughter was banned in 1998, there has been no corresponding rise in cruelty and neglect cases. In fact, horse theft has dropped by 34% since enactment of the ban. Allowing one's horse to starve is not an option—state anti-cruelty laws prohibit such neglect.

Of course California has has no problem since their ban on slaughter...the unwanted horses were simply shipped out of state.
Let's talk realty here...sure the Anti-slaughter groups (and the HSUS is NOT a group to support or trust!) are going to say the ban in California was successful.....BUT....what will happen if every state has a ban????
Unwanted horses will then face a LONG ride out of this country!
In a democratic country you cannot control who people sell to or who buys. Someone can still buy up a bunch of horses and take them somewhere else so the slaughter process might be stopped in the USA, but horses in the USA will still go to slaughter...the trip will just take them longer.
Also if there is a ban in this country...then a big supplier of the world's horsemeat will be restricted and horsemeat will become harder for some countries to get and as a result the price of horsemeat will increase and act as even more modivation for the buyers to keep buying (and even stealing) horses for the processing plants.
The reality is that the processing of horses in this country for meat cannot truly be stopped only relocated.....but it CAN be regulated and THAT is where ALL the time, energy and focus should be directed!
Instead these Animal Rights Groups want this law passed.
It is a small step in the part of their larger plan to take away our horses and other pets.....!!!!!!!

[Stormy'smom]

The same thing happens in every thread. Some one posts something about slaughter, someone comes on and starts the same questions over and over in every thread. What will happen to the XX amount of unwanted, who's gonna care for them, etc etc. You know the routine. it gets old hearing the same thing over and over again! They didn't get an answer on that the previous million times they asked, so why keep bringing it up, especially in here? Why not call and ask the people who are making this bill?
I was not talking to pro slaughter people when I wrote that. I was trying to maybe put a boot up a butt with some of the anti slaughter people to make those calls and get answers. And let their voice be heard about this.
Personally I am totally anti slaughter, and yes I have put my money where my mouth is. I have 4 in my backyard to prove it and 1 is a vet case (and coming along very well I may ad for my first rescues ever. The first 2 don't even look like the same 2 horses) I don't have room for anymore at this time, but working on getting more land so I can take in more.
As for why I seem to be taking it personally, I wasn't until your first posting. Go back and read it and put yourself in my shoes. You sound like a time bomb has just went off, so I find it a little hard to believe you didn't take something I said personally.
So with that said I have decided to keep my mouth shut, if I can, so no one else takes what I say the wrong way again.
Pocahontas, I'm sorry I seem to drag out the worst in people with my big mouth. Where's the lip zipper when I need one.

[pocahontas]

Blistering Winds

Why do you show up in so many threads here on this Forum
AND
Why does it almost always end up with you talking about you?

[pocahontas]

Okay everyone

This info I posted had the Humane Society name attached to it.
It is NOT just the Humane Society speaking up for this.

So, can we get over bashing the Humane Society and focusing on it.

I posted this info for anyone who follows the slaughter bill for no matter what your beliefs are.

Not to argue! Hey, post your points and where you stand. All the better.
But PLEASE do not put others points down. I think there have been enough threads in all areas that turn this way; I think it is time we learn from it!

[Sandra-A1]

I am sorry Pocahontas, but any information from a group like the HSUS whose integrity is less than steller will always be questioned. There are still people who think that the HSUS is an organization that truly cares about and works for animal welfare and this is NOT that case:

Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.
HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a “humane society” in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.

Despite HSUS’s public claims that it seeks only to ensure animals are humanely treated, the group’s values appear tilted toward eliminating humans’ use of animals entirely. They are an animal rights group that seeks to not only end the eating of meat but of anyone having companion animals, and the complete extinction of domestic animals!!!!!!!!

I am sorry if I offend or upset you, or anyone else, but I do feel that it is VERY important that people be educated about groups like the HSUS! Anything that this group supports should be questioned, taken apart and looked at under a microscope...each and every time.

Legal precedent and the trickle-down effect should always be a MAJOR consideration or we will find ourselves no longer able to own, ride, show and enjoy not only horses as we like.....but any other pet as well.
When this happens (and yes it could) then the extinction of these beloved creatures will be a serious possibility!

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Animal People News


“The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration.”

— HSUS senior scholar Michael W. Fox


“The Humane Society should be worried about protecting animals from cruelty. It’s not doing that. The place is all about power and money.”

— HSUS consultant and former HSUS Chief Investigator Robert Baker, in U.S. News & World Report

[Equine_Harmony]

Hi everyone, I received this from Chris Heyde and I copied and pasted this information for anti to pro to read, I feel that when speaking of horse slaughter it is impossible for it not to go into debate for the reason being everyone here loves horses right?
So everyone is passionate about them and their future.

When I first come to this site I did not see the other side which would be pro and now I do see this side and I'm torn about this, so I get something in the mail I read this that I copied and pasted here.





FACTS AND FAQ's ABOUT HORSE SLAUGHTER

* Last year three foreign-owned slaughter plants cruelly
slaughtered more than 90,000 horses for human consumption in Europe and
Asia. Tens of thousands more of America's horses were exported from the
U.S. and slaughtered in other countries.
* Slaughter is NOT humane euthanasia. Horses suffer horribly on
the way to and during slaughter.
* Passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (AHSPA)
will reduce animal suffering - hence its wide support throughout the
equestrian and veterinary world, as well as the humane community.
* Americans overwhelmingly support an end to horse slaughter for
human consumption (polls from Kentucky, Virginia, Texas and Utah
respectively show that 82, 74, 72 and 69 percent of those questioned
oppose the practice). In California, a 1998 ballot initiative (Prop. 6)
banning horse slaughter for human consumption passed with 60 percent of
the vote.

These are Q.s here, that are answered, what do you all think?
Note: these are not my Q.s and answers here they came from Chris Heyde~ Horse Protection

Sick and old horses to slaughter

Question: Is it true that slaughter is only a last resort for infirm,
dangerous or no longer serviceable horses?

Answer: 92.3 percent of horses arriving at slaughter plants in this
country are in "good" condition, according to the US Department of
Agriculture's Guidelines for Handling and Transporting Equines to
Slaughter.

Neglect and abuse

Question: Will horse abuse and neglect cases rise significantly
following a ban on slaughter?

Answer: There has been no documented rise in abuse and neglect cases in
California since the state banned horse slaughter for human consumption
in 1998. There was no documented rise in Illinois following closure of
the state's only horse slaughter plant in 2002 and its reopening in
2004.

Cost of caring for unwanted horses

Question: If there is a ban on horse slaughter, will horse rescue and
retirement groups have the resources to take care of unwanted horses?
Should the government have to pay for the care of horses voluntarily
given up by their owners?

Answer: Not every horse currently going to slaughter will need to be
absorbed into the rescue community - many will be sold to a new owner,
others will be kept longer and a licensed veterinarian will humanely
euthanize some. Opponents of this legislation admit passage of the bill
will not necessarily lead to an increase in the number of horses sent to
rescue facilities, precisely because humane euthanasia is so widely
used. It is not the government's responsibility to provide for the care
of horses voluntarily given up by their owners, as these animals are
private property. Hundreds of horse rescue organizations operate around
the country, and additional facilities are being established (a list is
available).

A safe and humane solution for sick, old and unwanted horses

Question: If slaughter is not an option, what will we do with sick, old
and unwanted horses?

Answer: Approximately 900,000 horses die annually in this country (10
percent of an estimated population of 9 million) and the vast majority
are not slaughtered, but euthanized and rendered or buried without any
negative environmental impact instead. Humane euthanasia and carcass
disposal is highly affordable and widely available. The average cost of
having a horse humanely euthanized and safely disposing of the animal's
carcass is approximately $225, while the average monthly cost of keeping
a horse is approximately $200.

Export of horses for slaughter abroad

Question: If there is a ban on horse slaughter in the United States,
will there be an increase in the export of horses for foreign slaughter?
Will horses suffer from longer transport for slaughter in countries
where there may be weaker welfare laws?

Answer: Horse slaughter has declined dramatically in the United States
over the past decade, but there has been no correlating increase in the
number of American horses exported for slaughter abroad. Further, the
AHSPA prohibits the export of horses for slaughter abroad, and contains
clear enforcement and penalty provisions to prevent this from happening.
Risk of federal prosecution and the high costs associated with illegally
transporting horses long distances for slaughter abroad are strong
deterrents.

Standards of care at sanctuaries and rescue organizations

Question: Is it true no standards exist for horse rescue facilities that
take unwanted horses?

Answer: The Doris Day Animal League and the Animal Welfare Institute
published "Basic Guidelines for Operating an Equine Rescue or Retirement
Facility" in 2004.
Additionally, the Association of Sanctuaries and the American
Sanctuaries Association provide accreditation programs, a code of ethics
and guidelines for the operation of sanctuaries and rescue
organizations. Horse rescue groups must also provide for the welfare of
horses in their custody in compliance with state and local animal
welfare laws.

Use of horsemeat in pet food

Question: If there is a ban on horse slaughter, will horsemeat no longer
be available for pet food?

Answer: There is no horsemeat in pet food. This practice stopped decades
ago and has some connection to the enactment of protections for
America's wild horses in 1971. The US public and Congress were outraged
to learn federal agencies were rounding up and allowing the exploitation
and slaughter of these national treasures for items such as pet food.
Some by-products of the horse slaughter industry are used in various
consumer items, but they are derived from the rendering (a different
process than slaughter and not affected by the AHSPA) of dead horses and
other animals.


To subscribe:
http://www.horse-protection.org/mailman/listinfo/ealert

[Equine_Harmony]

Horse Slaughter is not going to end anytime soon, this is just my out look and feeling, from what I read it seems to be about pleasing the people and gaining votes: Is this true, that this is about a political gain?

Thank you for anyones time on this,
Tammy