Ooh, Look at That One. He Looks Delicious.
Jacob Sullum | November 2, 2006, 1:15pm
These horse lovers are really getting annoying. I should clarify: not the horse lovers in France, Belgium, Germany, and Japan (among other places) who like a nice equine steak now and then—the horse lovers who are trying to stop them from enjoyi
ng this un-American delicacy. I should clarify that too: The meat is American, but the enjoyment of it is not. Hence the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, which the House passed by a vote of 263 to 146 in September. Yesterday the National Horse Protection Coalition used a full-page ad in The New York Times to complain that the Senate, due to the machinations of the nefarious Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, has not taken up the measure yet.
It seems the latter coalition's pork, milk, and beef producers are worried about the precedent set by an utterly arbitrary national ban on the slaughter of a particular animal. Opponents of the ban are worried that "these crazy animal rights groups will come after their livestock next," according to a Washington Times editorial quoted in the ad. "Talk about paranoia!" say the (American) horse lovers. "The fact is, we don't know of a single vegetarian on our board but can mention a few enlightened hunters and anglers who are able to make the distinction between a horse and a cow."
Perhaps they can enlighten me as well: What precisely is the morally and legally relevant distinction between a horse and a cow? Is it all about aesthetics? Lambs are awfully cute. Is the issue intelligence? Pigs are pretty smart. The absence of vegetarians from the board of the National Horse Protection Coalition will not prevent other people from citing the horse slaughter ban while arguing that Congress should protect their favorite animals.
The horse lovers simultaneously condemn opponents of the ban as "special interests" (unlike the people obsessed with preventing others from eating their sacred animal) and insist that "no U.S. interests are involved" (because it's only those barbaric foreigners who eat horsemeat). Instead of receiving overwhelming support in Congress, the folks who venerate horses should get exactly the same reaction as Hindus demanding a ban on cow slaughter or Jews insisting that pork should be forbidden throughout the land.
Marjorie | November 3, 2006, 12:12pm | #
I would like to offer the following to attempt to clarfiy a few points on the above article and the comments made:
We need to stop the barbaric practice of sending our horses, who carry our police, our children and our soldiers into battle, to slaughter.
Some will advocate that slaughter is humane - is it humane to skin and dismember an animal that is still alive and in some cases, still conscious? In addition, what people don’t know is that they are slaughtering foals, pregnant mares and young sound horses so that Europeans and Asians can feast on our American horses. Who would want to eat an old, sick horse? We don't treat our dogs and cats in this way, why would we condemn our horses to this horrific death?
There are three foreign-owned horse slaughter plants in the United States, two in Texas and one in Illinois and they pay very little to nothing in taxes every year.
Please read the statement on horse slaughter by Peggy Larson, who worked for the USDA and is a veterinarian: http://www.sharkonline.org/?P=0000000530
I also think that we should all consider where the statements of "pro-slaughter" are coming from, i.e., perhaps there are donations coming from the ranchers who would prefer to sell their horses to slaughter, after they have worked for them and can no longer, instead of having to pay for humane euthanisia?
In addition, two Kentucky Derby winners have been slaughtered:
Exceller – Only horse to beat two Triple Crown winners, Seattle Slew and Affirmed. Earned $1,654,003 and died in a slaughterhouse on Apr. 7th, 1997 two years before being inducted into the National Museum of Racing Hall of Fame.
Ferdinand – 1986 Kentucky Derby winner and 1987 Horse of the Year. Earned $3,777,978 retiring as the then 5th leading money winner of all time. Slaughtered in Sept. 2002 to avoid the cost of supporting him after his retirement.
Senator Burns, in a very under-handed way added an amendment to a large bill that took away the protection of our wild horses and burros. They too, are now being sent to slaughter. We, American citizens, pay for that land that they graze on, but the Senator has made certain that the ranchers in his state of Montana share in the taxpayers land!
Is this what we want to happen to our horses? To be served as a delicacy, after working for us or winning races for us? If not, please call your Senators and ask them to co-sponsor and support without amendments, S. 1915! It is important to end this atrocity.
In closing, I'd like to quote Republican Representative John Sweeney (NY), who sponsored HR 503: "It's one of the most inhumane, brutal and shady practices going on in the United States today."
For more information go to: www.saplonline.org/horses.htm
Marjorie
Bonnie Oliver | November 3, 2006, 12:32pm | #
Horse Slaughter Horror
Video Documentation
http://www.sharkonline.org/?P=0000000528
Doomed horses are lined up for cruel termination. The last hours of these intelligent animals are filled with dread as they experience the noise, smell and sight of death.
#1 This horse is hit in the shoulder by the mis-aimed captive bolt gun, causing even more pain and trauma.
#2 Wounded but still conscious after the mis-aimed shot, the suffering victim is hit again and again by the merciless captive bolt gun.
#1 A panicked victim struggles to gain footing on the slippery blood-soaked floor of the kill chute.
#2 Finally steady, the horse is shot by her killer, but she remains alive and conscious.
#3 Still struggling, she is shot a third time by her killer.
#1 Clearly aware of the peril she faces, this horse repeatedly attempts to avoid the captive bolt gun.
#2 The horror continues as the doomed horse continues to evade death. She looks toward her killer with eyes wide with terror. If she is looking for mercy, there is none to be found in this death house.
#3 Finally, her killer succeeds in blasting her skull, but even after three shots she is still moving.
A still moving victim is ejected from the kill chute.
The latest victim is hoisted, to be cut up in view of still-living victims.
The victim on the left side of the screen is having its face cut apart, while the victim on the right is being bled. This occurs in view of other horses awaiting the merciless captive bolt.
While the dismantling of these once-beautiful creatures goes on, the camera pans to the kill chute just a few feet away. There a victim is hit four times with the captive bolt gun.
The above video clips were generously supplied to SHARK by the Humane Farming Association.
Our thanks to Judy Marteniuk, DVM, who was a co-producer of the film, for permission to use these clips. Dr. Marteniuk is a faculty member at Michigan State University's College of Veterinary Medicine, where she specializes in Equine Medicine in the Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences.
Laura Boothby | November 3, 2006, 1:42pm | #
42 horses became 42 martyrs in the national fight against horse slaughter for human consumption in the early hours of September 27, 2006.
I looked for a way to convey their story to unknown masses that have no idea of the struggle of American horses and the people who work everyday to make this country safer for them. These noble creatures who give everything to their human care givers without question. Then I had a thought instead of going with the emotional response, I thought I would address the facts and lies that were reported in many of the reports that were posted at news outlets across the Midwest.
The statement that the horses involved in the accident were "old" horses is false. The horses in the accident ranged in ages from 7 months old to 26 years old. Horses can live well into their thirties and at 7 months they haven't even been given a chance.
I can only assume that the term "old" was thrown at the reporter by Cavel and the truck driver. This of course was false and must be emphasized that the majority of horses that go to slaughter are healthy animals and are in good body condition. In published slaughter house records it is documented that horses in good/healthy condition get top dollar.
Next I would like to address Cavel manager Jim Tucker's statement that reads as follows:
"Treating these animals humanely not only happens to be the right thing to do, but it's in our best business interest to see that the horses are treated well during their transportation to our facility," Cavel General Manager Jim Tucker said.
"Stressed horses result in an inferior product, and injured horses must be turned away," he said.*
Anyone who has campaigned to end the inhumane slaughter of horses knows that the above statement is simply a lie! Evidence has shown that many horses that are injured are indeed accepted for slaughter.
Just last month 19 horses bruised, battered and bloody were processed at a Texas slaughter plant. The man transporting the horses has been charged with 5 counts of animal abuse. Over the years former employees from Cavel have come forward and spoken about the horrors the horses go through before they are strung up and bled.
Each slaughter plant insists they cannot control what a single transporter will do yet they continue to do business with the same kill buyers repeatedly. They can control who they do business with yet they continue to turn their backs to the suffering of all equine during transport.
A spokesman for Cavel said the horse trader, not the processing facility, arranges for the
transportation and chooses the driver.
Cavel also said that it was disappointed the driver had allegedly been in violation of USDA
transportation regulations
These statements are part of a long list of statements made by Jim Tucker, in a desperate attempt to quiet public outcry .
In 2005 when Cavel bought and slaughtered several wild mustangs he insisted that his plant did not want to buy wild horse meat.
Quoting an article written by Samantha Young in May 2005:
"We've told our buyers, 'Don't bring BLM wild horses to us,' " plant
manager James Tucker said, adding that wild horses generally do not
yield good meat.
Representatives for Beltex Corp. of Fort Worth, Texas, and Dallas Crown
of Kaufman, Texas, said BLM officials had yet to contact them.
"We're not interested in those horses anyway," said Jim Bradshaw,
counsel for Dallas Crown.++
Yet in another article from the same time period (April 22, 2005) this is what Jim Tucker had to say on the slaughter of wild mustangs:
**Cavel General Manager Jim Tucker said the slaughterhouse has legally purchased wild horses from sellers who have the appropriate certification from the BLM.
"BLM allows horses to be adopted and held for a certain amount of time and allows them to be slaughtered," he said.
He confirmed that within the last week, Cavel purchased and slaughtered some horses from a seller who had gotten them through the BLM. He declined to say how many horses were purchased or from whom they were purchased, saying that such information is "proprietary."
He also said it wasn't the first time the slaughterhouse has processed wild horses.**
The horse slaughter industry has made an art out of contradiction. Take for instance the use of the words humane euthanasia.
Euthanasia is the practice of killing in a painless or minimally painful way for merciful reasons, usually to end suffering.
In a statement released Wednesday, Cavel confirmed the horses were bound
for the slaughterhouse, where they would have been euthanized under the
supervision of federal inspectors and USDA veterinarians, but the horses did
belong to the horse trader who bought them until they reach the plant.
Slaughter plants continue to use this word of mercy knowing full well that the majority of this country believe in humane euthanasia for our animal companions. It is a gross and negligent use of this word. There is nothing about horse slaughter that is humane.
From the beginning to the end horses, ponies, mules, and donkeys sent to slaughter are thrown into an inhumane situation. Beginning at auction houses across this country where disease and injury are regular occurrences. Only to be hauled for days on end without rest, food or water to one of the three operating slaughter plants.
The ending of the journey is the harshest reality. Horses are sent down to slaughter one by one. Forced through fencing and gates by men screaming and whipping them. They can hear other horses screaming in terror and thrashing in the "kill box". They can smell the blood and sweat of the horses that have been strung up before them. The horse next in line can see what is happening and they know what is coming. They struggle and fight for their lives. Blasted again and again with the captive bolt gun, in the shoulder, in the neck, on their smooth noses.....
Is this a humane end to a life of service or for a life that never even had a chance to begin? I say No.
You can find updates and more info on the web site of the organization caring for the survivors at www.longmeadowrescueranch.org
Kind Regards,
Laura Boothby
Dave | November 3, 2006, 11:39pm | #
Jeanete - You failed to specify which God, so it is reasonable to presume that you meant the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God whose words are presented in the holy writings I referenced. Your response denying the validity of this God is a lazy cop-out, and about what I'd expected. You asked where 'God' said it. I showed you. You don't like it so you try to change the subject. As I said, big hearts, small brains.
Your inability to read for context (ref. your Genesis quotes), to sustain connected thought across more than one post, or even to retain the context of a discussion amply demonstrate the intellectual paucity of your argument.
Keep screaming and throwing feces like a good little primate.
Carolyne & Sally - Your overly romantized image of the man/horse relationship is the kind of thing that is created by dreamy-eyed pre-teen girls, and almost never survives the actual experience.
"You build a lifetime bonding," - no, the critter won't miss you at all if someone else takes your place.
"the Horse carries you on his back," - if you have a decent seat at all, most of your weight is over the withers. Sitting further back, on the back proper, is abusive.
"allows you to whip and kick him," - A properly trained animal is never whipped or kicked. All it takes is a touch of leather (if driving) or heel (if riding) to communicate your desires.
"choke him with a bit." - I have no idea how a bit could be placed to obstruct breathing. It's a bar of metal between the teeth, not a strap around the throat. Where did you learn to put on a bridle?
"And at the end of the day, he still loves you anyway." - purest wishful thinking and anthropomorphizing.
It's really a fascinating concept. Try learning something about a subject before actually having an opinion. You'll look less foolish.
Jeanete | November 5, 2006, 4:19pm | #
Here's some FACTS about animal abuse and the human condition. Dispute this.
Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s, when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals as children. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of more common forms of violence, including child abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder.
If you break it down to its bare essentials:
"Abusing an animal is a way for a human to find power/joy/fulfillment through the torture of a victim they know cannot defend itself."
Now break down a human crime, say rape. If we substitute a few pronouns, it's the SAME THING.
"Rape is a way for a human to find power/joy/fulfillment through the torture of a victim they know cannot defend themselves."
Now try it with, say, domestic abuse such as child abuse or spousal abuse:
"Child abuse is a way for a human to find power/joy/fulfillment through the torture of a victim they know cannot defend themselves."
Do you see the pattern here?
The line separating an animal abuser from someone capable of committing human abuse is much finer than most people care to consider. People abuse animals for the same reasons they abuse people. Some of them will stop with animals, but enough have been proven to continue on to commit violent crimes to people that it's worth paying attention to.
Virtually every serious violent offender has a history of animal abuse in their past, and since there's no way to know which animal abuser is going to continue on to commit violent human crimes, they should ALL be taken that seriously. FBI Supervisory Special Agent Allen Brantley was quoted as saying "Animal cruelty... is not a harmless venting of emotion in a healthy individual; this is a warning sign..." It should be looked at as exactly that. Its a clear indicator of psychological issues that can and often DO lead to more violent human crimes.
Dr. Randall Lockwood, who has a doctorate in psychology and is senior vice president for anti-cruelty initiatives and training for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, states "A kid who is abusive to a pet is quite often acting out violence directly experienced or witnessed in the home," Lockwood said, adding that about one-third of children who are exposed to family violence will act out this violence, often against their own pets.
Others either abuse pets or threaten to abuse them as a way to control an individual.
"So much of animal cruelty... is really about power or control," Lockwood said. O
