Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption

[TBF]

Just when I thought I couldn't be more disgusted with things that folks do in Washington we have this. Out of all the things they need to be doing - this is the bill that manages to get passed?



Author: madeline bernstein
Published: November 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm

Horse slaughter plants are legal again in the United States. Restrictions on horse meat processing for human consumption have been lifted.

In a bipartisan effort, the House of Representatives and the United States Senate approved the Conference Committee report on spending bill H2112, which among other things, funds the United States Department of Agriculture. On November 18th, as the country was celebrating Thanksgiving, President Obama signed a law, allowing Americans to kill and eat horses. Essentially, one turkey was pardoned in the presence of worldwide media while in the shadows, buried under pages of fiscal regulation, millions of horses were sentenced to death.

Read more: http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/obama-legalizes-horse-slaughter-for-human/#ixzz1f9DAqZlG

[BoWanZi]

1. Its meat, what is so strange about that? I would try it.

I would go to say that there really isn't any difference between a horse that is slaughtered for food and a cow slaughtered for food.

I don't see it as a big deal.

[TBF]

3. Dogs, cats, why not ...

:cry:

[FarCenter]

Mainly because they are carnivores

While horses are herbivores, like cows, sheep, goats, etc.

Carnivores are best avoided because of parasites.

[BoWanZi]

11. I never thought about it that way. Makes sense. -nt-

[BoWanZi]

I personally would not eat cats/dogs because I have several cats and dogs but never had pet horse

I imagine that horse lovers/riders/aficionados would NOT want to eat horse meat and I don't belittle their choice but I personally have never had a pet horse so it wouldn't bother me.

I don't belittle Asian cultures where dog/cat eating is considered normal. Not something I would partake but I'm not going to judge them when I eat lamb/cow/pig/etc.

[bluestate10]

138. People in some cultures do in fact eat cats and dogs. You overlay

your western sensibilities on others.

[tabasco]

164. So do I.

People who eat dogs are fucked in the head.

Dogs were bred to work for us and be part of our families.

Overpopulation has caused people to be fucked in the head and eat them.

[Sheepshank]

214. What about guinea pigs?

for a while South American was importing them to the US for dinner. They breed 'em as big as chickens....I don't think it caught on however. I dont' suppose horse will catch on either, but given the economy, I may be wrong.

[sibelian]

372. It;s not good to eat carnivore meat

Particularly the liver. It's bad for you.

[teddy51]

4. I've stated that I am a hypocrite, but I am disgusted by this. Yea, yea I know

I don't have a vote. Sorry, but that's how I feel.

[tblue]

10. There's a certain consistency in hypocrisy.

Everybody's got their inner contradictions. At some point, your heart says, " Oh hell NO!!!" You gotta honor that. It's cool.

I don't eat any meat so this horse thing just makes me want to gag. But so do raw bacon and factory farms. And I do have leather shoes and a couple leather coats. So I guess that makes me a hypocrite too. But I figure, the animal didn't die to give their skin (one coat is from a thrift store), so I didn't make it die. (I could be wrong but that 's my story and I'm sticking to it.)

[RainDog]

18. Horse meat is standard deli fare in Belgium and France, etc.

I tried it but just couldn't eat it. I like horses and used to ride them all the time. I don't like to eat rabbit, either, because I think of Thumper.

obviously Wilbur (from Charlotte's Web), or Elsie the cow don't have as much emotional impact on me - tho, if I had to slaughter animals for food myself, I would probably be a vegetarian.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBF]

36. I agree -

but I grew up with horses. It makes sense that kids from the city may have no clue.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

53. So, what did you think of the GAO report on this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4896895

[rpannier]

183. They should have banned the export as well

[Kali]

200. and done what with all the horses that were exported?

and the ones neglected and abandoned as it was?

[ProSense]

77. Meltdown in aisle three! n/t

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestate10]

136. I wouldn't eat horse-meat, but am ok with thinning wild herds. nt

[flvegan]

255. Is that what this deals with, and if so why are you ok with it?

[mmonk]

285. I had a horse named Midnight that was a blue ribbon champion at horse shows.

I don't think my mind will allow for it you might say.

[LWolf]

287. Domestic animals that have been

bred to be partners with humans should not be food. It's unethical.

I'd no more eat my horses than I'd eat children.

[lame54]

312. Seabiscuit on a biscuit

[DainBramaged]

319. Somehow we knew you'd be one of the first to reply here......

Eating horses disgusts me. People who consider them 'just meat' disgust me more.

[BoWanZi]

322. LOL! Who is "we" anyway? A troupe of circus performers? The internet police?

I take it you don't like me. Sorry about that.

You just have to look at this issue pragmatically without letting your emotions of Black Beauty clouding your thoughts. I already mentioned that I thought that people like me who have no emotional ties to horses as in owning them for pets or riding them or other horse endeavors would not have a big issue with eating them. I have a friend who raises and rides Rocky Mountain horses and I would NEVER expect her to even consider eating a horse in the slightest and would probably not even discuss the issue with her out of respect of her deep emotional feelings for her pets.

Look at it this way as well, there are millions of people who think that Charlotte's Web was a beautifully written and played movie/story with Wilbur the pig as the star but who still have no problem with eating pig in its various forms. No one is forcing you to eat horse meat so why are you so offended by others who might eat it. No different than eating a cow or a pig or whatever your favorite livestock animal.

Just because horses can be elegant and beautiful should not mean they are any more exempt from being eaten than other animals if it is safe to do so. Just be a realist and pragmatic about it and judge the issue accordingly.

Why exactly do you dislike me so much anyways?

[underseasurveyor]

337. It helps to educate oneself before inserting food in mouth.

"Let’s forget for the moment that candidate Barack Obama in 2008 pledged to keep the ban on horse slaughter permanent (another promise to voters reneged?) Let’s forget, too, that American horses are not bred or raised for consumption. Let’s forget that the few countries where horsemeat is consumed (France, Belgium and Japan among them) are ignoring the outright cruelty to horses that raises the hackles of right-thinking Americans. The simple question is: do we want our tax dollars spent to inspect horses who were slaughtered in incredibly cruel fashion (a bolt through the forehead that doesn’t kill them immediately) so foreign owners of slaughter plants can profit? In the midst of a recession when other crucial programs such as Medicare and education are suffering deep cuts, the answer is a resounding, “no.”

Supporters of horse slaughter say the reintroduction of slaughter plants in the U.S. will create jobs. An article in the Desert Independent in Blythe, Calif., this month noted, “Horse slaughter plants operating until 2007…never created a total of more than 178 jobs.” The kind of jobs they do create are of dubious economic value to the individuals who take them and to the communities where slaughter plants are located.

The Independent quotes Paula Bacon, former mayor of Kaufman, Texas, where a horse slaughter facility operated for years as saying, “Horse slaughter means very few, very low wage jobs, meaning workers and their families overtaxed local resources like the hospitals and government services. This so called business brought in virtually no tax revenues and local governments incurred substantial enforcement costs in trying to regulate these facilities. The standard of living dropped during the time horse slaughter facilities operated. Having a horse slaughter facility drove away good businesses.”

http://our-compass.org/2011/11/29/obama-signs-law-legalizing-horse-slaughter-in-the-us/


Not to mention that horse-meat is not safe for human consumption. Phenylbutazone (or bute)... "Use in horses is limited to horses which are not intended for food. Metabolites of phenylbutazone can cause aplastic anaemia in humans."

Phenylbutazone is a commonly used painkiller in horses. Now are you willing to trust that the horsemeat you eat is safe? Where do you think the horse meat is going to come from? Think!

[RebelOne]

350. Well, I sure as wouldn't. I have owned horses.

They are very intelligent animals, the same as your dogs and cats. Plus, I wouldn't eat cows or pigs pr chickens or any other warm-blooded animal. I am a vegetarian. This may cause me not to vote for Obama in 2012. I won't vote for a Republican though. I may go Independent and vote for Ron Paul.

[alfredo]

390. Horse meat is lean, and as of now, not pumped full of

drugs, or fed corn to fatten them up. I think I ate some years ago. I've eaten a lot of wild meat, all of it good. Wild boar is my favorite, buffalo is next.

Rabbit is a very good source of protein and they are good at turning grass into flesh. The horse will never be a big source of protein because they aren't as efficient as a cow at converting grass and water to meat.

[teddy51]

2. This is disgusting! WTF, why would they pass something like this? n/t

[bbgrunt]

5. just when I think I can't be more disillunsioned.....next step: soylent green.

[TBF]

8. No kidding ... next I believe they will sign a bill authorizing us to eat folks over 70.

That way we can cut all those pesky social security and medicare payments - win/win.

:sarcasm:

[inna]

6. Is this for real? Wow. I'm surprised (or am I?) that there's not more coverage.

Darn.

:(

[bhikkhu]

157. Its a little part of a huge bill, with hundreds of provisions

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people voting weren't even aware of the horse part. I doubt that "Obama approves horse-eating" or whatever is really the most fair headline.

I'm reading the bill myself - I couldn't find anything about the horse-meat provision in the summaries, and have yet to find it in the text...

[TBF]

165. You won't find anything about horse-meat

at least I haven't in my searches. It has to do with funding for inspections. I found an article (from the pro-slaughter folks) that at least lays out some more detail: http://newsok.com/u.s.-horse-slaughter-plants-in-the-very-early-stages-of-planning-proponent-says/article/3626718#ixzz1f9lgCE00

[bhikkhu]

211. I did eventually figure that out

I suppose the coverage is a little disingenuous...I know a bit about the subject as I live in a semi-rural area and talk to ranchers and horse-owners regularly. The de-funding of inspectors that led to the closing of all the US slaughterhouses isn't really what anyone would call "good government".

Not that I'm fond of slaughterhouses, but if you have a horse now you eventually either have to wait for it to die of old age, or have a vet come out and put it down (though burying it afterwards is quite a job), or ship it to Mexico. If the slaughterhouses needed to be more humane or regulated somehow, that should have been done. Just shutting down inspection was a lousy way of denying an essential service to rural areas.

[TBF]

275. Yes I can understand that ramification -

my grandfather raised horses (also beef, and cash-crop corn) ... so I do understand the realities of farm life. I don't like this whole horse as meat thing though and would like that banned. As evidenced others feel differently about that, but I have to believe some of that is just supporting Obama no matter what damned fool thing he does. This is yet another campaign promise he broke outright, and I think that deserves an OP. Although I must admit for me it's probably more emotional after growing up with horses, I certainly don't write OPs about every promise he makes, this one just bothered me.

[Godhumor]

233. Had raw horse while living in Japan. Similar to a steak tartare

Never got around to trying the horse jerky, though.

[yawnmaster]

7. As long as we don't eat cute ones like in that picture, it's probably okay. eom

[flvegan]

9. Why anyone is ever surprised even remotely by what the do-nothing

know-even-less CHUD idiots that "serve" us in Congress is beyond me. Oooh, yay more animals scheduled to be treated like shit and die likely horrible deaths just so America can get fatter and eat less healthy. Brilliant.

[inna]

12. yeah, you're probably right, but... but... what do we do with this??

:argh:

[flvegan]

22. Vote for better representatives? Oh yeah, about that...

[treestar]

315. Oh but voting doesn't make any difference!

Look at the OPs sig line.

We'd be better off with Kucinich as dictator!

:sarcasm:

Let's find out how Kucinich voted on this first. Then we can know what to think. :sarcasm:

[jberryhill]

34. There was a thread on this legislation here at DU a while back

What did you do at that time?

[TBF]

46. Not everyone is glued to the screen here - we do have lives.

I only found out about this because my sister is very involved in watching the animal news. As I said to ProSense, it would be very difficult to read all these bills before they pass. We are supposedly voting for representatives to do that for us, but you can imagine how helpful Pete Olsen is in that regard ...

[jberryhill]

47. K... read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4896895&mesg_id=4896895

Slaughter ban sending horses across borders

GAO says policy has led to ‘unintended consequences’

Congress imposed a back-door ban on horse slaughter in 2006 to try to improve humane conditions, but a new government report says it has backfired and the same horses are now being exported for slaughter in Canada and Mexico, and they likely are suffering more along the journey.

The Government Accountability Office said the policy has led to “unintended consequences” such as depressed prices for all horses and an increase in reports of animal neglect, abuse and abandonment. GAO said Congress and the Obama administration may need to revisit the entire issue.

“Those horses are traveling farther to meet the same end in foreign slaughtering facilities where U.S. humane slaughtering protections do not apply,” GAO said in unusually blunt language that said that the horses are sometimes shipped in too-small containers for hundreds of miles, and that the inspection regime is too lax to help.

[TBF]

Thanks for the background - I agree with poster Hawkowl

the folks that passed this are MF's

[jberryhill]

55. But you were fine with it being legal until 2006?

Right?

I mean, until five years ago, you were out there trying to stop horse slaughter.

[TBF]

59. I had no idea this was legal - I bet a lot of folks didn't. We know now.

It is possible to form an opinion once you find out about something, or are we magically supposed to know about everything in the world the day we are born?

[jberryhill]

69. Because it is not a huge market

However, there are no hospice facilities for older horses, which were being shipped off to Mexico for slaughter.

You can argue with the GAO all you want, but after actual study of the consequences of having made it illegal in 2006, they found an increase in inhumane treatment of horses as a RESULT of there not being a way to legally slaughter them.

People who, for whatever reason, could no longer keep them would either turn them loose or let them starve - in some areas of the country those are the same thing.

There is not enough of a market nor value to raise horses for this purpose - it is all about excess horses. Nobody is going to say, "Hey, I'm going to raise a herd of horses for meat" since cattle are easier to raise, manage, and have higher value.

[TBF]

74. Yes, I think there are other alternatives -

of course I wouldn't be surprised if slaughter of the homeless is next. After all, they are not humanely treated - one could call them "excess". Let's eat them!

[jberryhill]

80. Okay, but if this is a new issue to you

Perhaps you might want to read the report:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11228.pdf

HORSE WELFARE

Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter.

That's what was happening. Take a few minutes and stroll through it. It is not pretty.

[inna]

90. You cannot possibly be serious,

and your "effort" is not appreciated.

[jberryhill]

103. Yes, I'm serious, I posted a link to the thread

Horse slaughter was legal up until 2006. The GAO conducted a study of the effects of the ban on horse welfare. They found the ban was counterproductive and resulted in greater suffering of horses.

[inna]

109. who in the world would POSSIBLY have the time to follow all those threads from

years ago?

That's precisely why I said, "you could not POSSIBLY be serious".


:wtf:

[jberryhill]

122. Well, who in the world....

...has such comprehensive knowledge to have an armchair snap-judgment on a complex issue that has been the subject of study for several years?

You know what I have a hard time taking seriously?

OBAMA IS A MAD BLOODTHIRSTY HORSE KILLER!!!!!1ELEVen

I really wish I lived in a world of comic book morality where things are so clear cut.

[inna]

126. Huh?

:wtf:

[inna]

130. what the fuck are you even babbling about?

what's wrong with you?

[jberryhill]

135. Okay, I'll back up...

Your question to me was "Who in the world has time to develop an informed opinion about an issue?"

Yes?

And, by the way, that thread from "years ago" was June 2011.

[ellisonz]

268. +1000

[jberryhill]

14. How would this result in the slaughter of "more animals" overall?

Unless you meant more as in "more species of animals" rather than the number of animals overall, I can't see how this re-legalization has the effect of increasing the average American's consumption of meat.

If someone who eats, say, chicken, decides to eat horse now and then, you actually get a reduction in the number of animals slaughtered, since a horse provides more meat than a chicken does.

[flvegan]

20. Sigh.

More...another choice in critter, another industry, another species to be likely woefully mistreated.

[jberryhill]

31. Okay, but, I'm sticking with my rats and grasshoppers

I wouldn't have thought you meant "more" numerically, but it was ambiguous.

My understanding, though, was that a lot of older live horses were being shipped abroad, and there were wild horse culling issues relating to population control in arid western areas that couldn't support the population. Frankly, I don't know what becomes of the ponies which fail to sell at auction at, say, Assateague, where there's been a wild herd since a Spanish shipwreck long ago. It's a barrier island that only can support so many, which is why they have the annual roundup of "Misty of Chincoteague" fame.

Back in the 70's horsemeat made brief waves when beef prices had climbed considerably, but really never made much market headway. Specifically raising horses for meat on any sort of large scale strikes me as a nutty proposition for a variety of reasons.

[Tsiyu]

169. If you own horses, you know the harm in this legislation

There will be horse thieves stealing horses in the middle of the night to sell to the slaughterhouses to make a fast buck. Anyone with horses had better make sure to upgrade their security. If there's a fast buck to be made, some Americans will create a way to use this law to set up a fine business for themselves. A truck, a trailer and a little gas and you have an unlimited supply of cash. YAY!!!!


The reasons Americans are having trouble feeding their horses is that the price of grain has gone through the roof because of corn grown for ethanol. Rather than address this issue....we'll just torment the horses!

And the horses of the west have plenty of room if the farmers don't claim all of our public lands as their own.

This is sick and wrong but so is most legislation these days.

Glad to know who supports it here

[jberryhill]

176. I see... So there was a dramatic reduction in horse thefts since 2007?

You do know that slaughtering horses was only banned in 2006, yes?

Do you have the figures on this?

[Tsiyu]

178. I know what the economy was like in 2006

I know what the economy is now.

[jberryhill]

182. Yeah, and it was up and down plenty of times before

Cattle are still worth more and easier to steal, though.

[Tsiyu]

187. Worth more to the market

not worth more to those who own horses.

But money money money Baby......

[jberryhill]

189. It's difficult to decipher your point

A steer is:

1. Worth more
2. Easier to steal
3. More numerous

But you are saying that there is going to be some greater economic incentive to steal horses, which at no time existed prior to 2006?

[Tsiyu]

192. Gosh, if all the slaughterhouses were in Mexico & Canada

My leetle beety self cain't IMAGINE why there'd be more incentive now, with a slaughterhouse just down the road.....

[Sheepshank]

220. are you really implying the recent legislation of slaughter of horses has lead to today's economy?nt

[Tsiyu]

228. Huh?

I'm implying that the economy is REALLY bad right now, and people are desperate for $$$.

Desperate people do desperate things, and I DO believe with slaughterhouses in the US, we will see a large number of stolen horses. Even if the poster below (Kali) thinks it's not worth it, I live in an area where people will practically electrocute themselves to steal a small bit of copper.

Stealing three or four horses and making a couple hundred is a good night for these types. They destroy cellphone towers and electric substations for metal. Horses will be a much easier moneymaker.

I think this legislation sucks.

[hack89]

303. But that bad economy is leading to people abandoning horses

which in turn are starving.

[GoCubsGo]

380. I was just about to comment on that.

We have a local horse rescue here that has dozens of horses that were abandoned or confiscated due to neglect. They got a couple that were found wandering around a rural area a few months ago. AFAIK, nobody has come to claim them. Some of the "horse people" here have told me that the neglect and abandonment is common all over the country, and has been for the past five or six years.

[riderinthestorm]

376. LOL!!! You must be joking? Stealing? How do you get it on the trailer in the middle of the night?

Have you ever loaded a horse? Virtually ALL of othem balk in the middle of the day, in broad daylight, especially on a strange trailer. Trying to do it in the middle of the night in darkness??!! Almost impossible. No thief would even know which horses were good loaders, let alone crappy loaders, just from looking at them standing there. Then there's the NOISE of a horse loading, especially in a stock trailer - its akin to thunder. The other horses/pasture mates/barn mates on the property will set up the alarm, calling and screaming.

It's not like you just rustle them across the mountains either. They don't usually lead well unless you can pick out the herd alphas (or betas) and somehow rope them! Many have never been ponied so that's out. Getting them to traverse unknown terrain at the hands of a stranger - difficult.

Honestly, I don't see stealing horses as being very potentially lucrative, easy or efficient.

[Kali]

198. sure because sneaking in and stealing a large animal

and selling it in public to an operating business for 50 or 100 dollars is real lucrative thievery.

Sorry it is only profitable to steal large numbers in a big operation and most horses aren't housed in a way that makes that very easy. Then the prices one gets for slaughter horses is pretty much nothing.

Now when the market for fancy bred horses was up it might be worth it to steal something, but again without papers the animal is reduced to grade status. Horse theft is not really a viable criminal activity.

It may happen occasionally (and I believe I have been the victim of a horse being stolen), but the logistics and prices for slaughter are just too low to be very profitable for long. Requiring brands and inspections or some other positive ID and confirmation would eliminate all but a very rare theft.

Finally, if there are stealing opportunities, they existed during the ban as well. Allowing in-country slaughter isn't going to affect that. Theoretically you could ship a truckload of stolen horses across the international border as easy as to the next state.

[Mimosa]

213. Slaughtering and shipping horses for food should be illegal. n/t

[teddy51]

21. So why don't we eat humans as well then, I'm certain that some think they are tasty as well? n/t

[TBF]

23. We'll start with Congress. nt

[jberryhill]

32. What do you mean "we"?

I find your assumption about my diet amusing.

[a la izquierda]

15. +1

So fucking sad

[Kali]

208. where are MORE animals getting treated like shit from this?

there are already too many being neglected and starved and others are being shipped for slaughter already. Much farther distances, to facilities not under US jurisdiction and regulation.


and what does it have to do with American diet and health? no market here for horse meat

the puppehs and kittehs might like to get in on it, though

[flvegan]

223. See Post #20

And try to keep up.

What does it have to do with our diet and health? Trusting fool. You don't think that someone will figure out a way to market it? Label it as something other than horse and toss it in a Progresso can?

I find great comedy in your ideology that just because some facility isn't under US jurisdiction and regulation it's any better. Hey, psst...Gitmo is better than that other place. Just more fucking vampires feeding off the blood of animals. Our system is no great shakes. Just because you're small market, and I do respect that, in the grand scheme of things with this doesn't bode well.

And slaughter for dog/cat food is no different to the horse in question.

[Kali]

242. um, slaugheter was completly legal in the US a few years ago

and nobody was marketing horsemeat to us then or pretty much at any time in our history so I just don't see that as reality

I'll give you a point about gitmo oversight, but all and all there is a lot better chance for some peta activist to sneak in and film atrocities, raise a stink and get a facility cleaned up or shut down here in the US than in say old Mexico.

so the claims of more animals being mistreated/killed and some effect on American diet are still not viable IMO

[flvegan]

253. Thanks for the PETA props.

[sufrommich]

13. I just watched Andrew Zimmern eat horse meat in Italy the

other day, he said it was good. Although he says a lot of thing are good that I wouldn't try.

[bloomington-lib]

286. Carne di cavallo is delicious in Italy and good for you too.

[Skip Intro]

16. I know the word has lost all meaning, but this is outrageous. nt

[hack89]

308. So what is your alternative? nt

[ProSense]

17. Maybe

the focus should be on bills before they pass.

Here's the roll call, 30 Republicans voted against the bill.

Does anyone know what's actually in the bill?

Here's another bill that's going to sail through.

[TBF]

19. These things are not publicized - do you expect folks to sit and read all of these?

Other people have jobs and lives that do not revolve around politics which I know is hard for some to believe.

[ProSense]

63. Well

"These things are not publicized - do you expect folks to sit and read all of these?"

...how on earth can the OP article be the sole source of outrage? It's slim on facts, doesn't indicate the rationale behind the change.

It appears the only purpose of the piece is to create the impression that Obama did something negative. Does anyone know what's in the bill? Why did the House (Republicans') version maintain the ban? Why did the Senate (Democratic caucus) lift it?

Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter (PDF)

[TBF]

85. Your interpretation is wrong

I grew up with horses and as such may find this more troubling than others. I am quite sure a republican president (or other democrat) would likely sign it just as easily because they are capitalists. I don't buy that this is the only alternative to "deal with" horses that have been "dumped" due to the economy. Hold auctions and let folks bid on them. But, no, someone decided they could profit off handsomely off slaughter houses (oooh - McDonalds contract!) and got it tucked into a bill without fanfare.

I suppose it is no different than other animals being slaughtered, I simply view horses as I would cats and dogs. For all I know those are also delicacies.

[ProSense]

95. Actually,

Your interpretation is wrong I grew up with horses and as such may find this more troubling than others. I am quite sure a republican president (or other democrat) would likely sign it just as easily because they are capitalists. I don't buy that this is the only alternative to "deal with" horses that have been "dumped" due to the economy. Hold auctions and let folks bid on them. But, no, someone decided they could profit off handsomely off slaughter houses (oooh - McDonalds contract!) and got it tucked into a bill without fanfare.

I suppose it is no different than other animals being slaughtered, I simply view horses as I would cats and dogs. For all I know those are also delicacies.

...no. The fact is that this was not about the ridiculous assertion in the OP (read the report). Also, the "capitalists" argument is quite bogus given that all the no votes were Republicans and every member of the Democratic caucus voted for it.

[TBF]

119. Both republicans and democrats are capitalists. nt

[ProSense]

123. So

"Both republicans and democrats are capitalists."

...is your argument that the 30 Republicans who voted for it are not "capitalists," but those who did, including Bernie Sanders, are?

What does this vote have to do with capitalism?

[TBF]

125. Nope, my argument is that someone found a way to make profit off these

horses and convinced the dems that it would be more humane to deal with the issue this way. I disagree, but I'm not in Congress.

[ProSense]

141. Wait

"Nope, my argument is that someone found a way to make profit off these horses and convinced the dems that it would be more humane to deal with the issue this way. I disagree, but I'm not in Congress."

...you think what was happening was "more humane"?

I'm convinced that the desire to be outraged at the President is going cause some to cheer crazy. Any day now someone will be arguing that the Republicans are right (not that it hasn't been tried before).

[TBF]

150. Not that what was happening was more humane,

but that we could find other ways to solve the problem.


You won't find me advocating for republicans - I have to believe it was something else in the bill that caused 30 of them to vote against it (either that or they were just being contrary).

[treestar]

305. Um, then you should recognize that you could be manipulated

Good grief! Are you really saying you will make up your mind in knee jerk fashion without knowledge because you don't have time to figure out what you're deciding about?

[TBF]

340. I am saying that normal folks outside of the beltway don't have time to sit and study

every bill that Congress debates. That is why we elect representatives. That doesn't take away our right to criticize the things they do. Well, unless you criticize POTUS, then you have the tru fans after you ... Doesn't matter what he does, it's perfect no matter what and heaven help you if you happen to disagree with him.

[struggle4progress]

62. H.R.2112 is the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012:

the pdf version of the enrolled bill, located via Thomas and downloaded from GPO, runs to about 160pp

Under TITLE I: AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS: PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND MARKETING, there is a subheading ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE: SALARIES AND EXPENSES (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS) which includes the text ... For necessary expenses of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .. and for expenses pursuant to the Foreign Service Act of 1980 .. $816,534,000 .. of which $696,000 shall be for activities under the authority of the Horse Protection Act of 1970, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1831) ...

15 U.S.C. 1831 is one of several sections in USC, Title 15, Chapter 44, styled "Protection of Horses"

This is the only instance of the word "horse" I found when in searching the text with Adobe Reader

I similarly searched the text for "slaughter" and found only a single instance under FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE. It includes the text For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act, .. $1,004,427,000 ..: Provided further, That no fewer than 148 full-time equivalent positions shall be employed during fiscal year 2012 for purposes dedicated solely to inspections and enforcement related to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act ...

This can all easily be checked using Thomas and fdsys

So I have some doubts about the accuracy of the article linked in the OP

[TBF]

67. There are several articles about this subject - not just this one. But go ahead and cast doubt. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. A good citation would be very helpful

The one in the OP looks to be incorrect.

[struggle4progress]

100. If I'm wrong, you should be able to prove it. I'll show you how to do the research:

(1) Look up the bill. Go to Thomas and under Search Bill Summary & Status hit the bill number radio button, enter the bill number, and hit Search. This will bring up a navigation page and you can follow links to download a pdf of the enrolled version of the bill

(2) To sort out what various references mean, you may (for example) want to view portions of the US Code. To do that, go to the Federal Digital System and under Featured Collections select United States Code; then you can find sections of the various Titles of the USC

[TBF]

118. They don't always spell everything out -

in this case they simply overturned a previous ban.

[struggle4progress]

143. What statute do you think was repealed, and what section of the bill do you think repealed it?

[Tx4obama]

260. It doesn't matter what articles say, the only thing that counts is what the BILL says. n/t

[treestar]

307. Thank you!

And people complain when Faux Noise manipulates and lies but then are willing to subject themselves to that same thing just so long as they think it is from the right sources!

[Raine]

24. Just more of the same SHIT I've come to expect

from the whole lot of this bunch, FUCK THEM ALL! :grr:

[usregimechange]

26. That's horrible, now where is my burger and prok chop?

[PeaceNikki]

29. mmmm prok chops!

:P

[bluestate10]

145. I had a pork chop dinner Sunday. Delish. nt

[Abin Sur]

27. There's only one question that really matters: Are they delicious?

If so, I'll be first in line!

(as evidence of their tastiness, I would point out that there were lot of horses in North America until humans showed up around 15,000 years ago...then we ate all of them!)

[femrap]

61. Remove a

couple of ribs and you can eat yourself.

[Abin Sur]

70. I've never tried long pig.

Do you have any recipes you'd like to trade? :)

[Zywiec]

28. "On November 18th, as the country was celebrating Thanksgiving"

I usually call bullshit on articles that have the most basic information wrong.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. Oh man, those look delicious.

[Youth Uprising]

128. I'm not a vegeterian but I hate this kind of attitude

from some meat eaters, usually right-wingers. It's just as obnoxious as pushy vegans/vegetarians.

[Abin Sur]

140. The difference being that pushy vegans think they're morally superior and frequently

want to enact legislation making it more difficult for the masses to consume meat, whereas "in your face" meat eaters are just saying, "This is delicious and you're foolish for not eating it, nyah nyah".

[bluestate10]

147. I agree. nt

[Ignis]

263. Which vegans, exactly, are "pushy" in your broad-brush world?

:freak:

[Abin Sur]

293. Those who assert moral superiority because of their eating habits and use this claim to browbeat

those who like to eat meat. Also, those who wish to pass legislation which would reduce the amount of meat we eat (PETA and their ilk).

[Ignis]

355. Is the claim of moral superiority always "pushy?"

For example, could you claim to be morally superior to, say, John Wayne Gacy? Or is the very act of claiming moral superiority (for whatever reason) the bugaboo here?

[Abin Sur]

364. Not by definition, no.

But those who are engaged in advocacy are pretty much by definition "pushy".

For example, could you claim to be morally superior to, say, John Wayne Gacy?

Sure I could, as could anyone else. By virtually any society's standards I'm morally superior to Gacy, but keep in mind that morality itself is a human invention, a social construct. It's not as if the universe enforces it as it does (for example) E=MC2.

[Ignis]

356. Gotta love DU. Try to paint any other group as "pushy" and it would be nuked.

Inconsistent application of rules is often worse than no rules at all, for it erodes trust in not only THAT system, but others as well.

Oh well.

[Abin Sur]

365. Would it?

Let's take one of the most contentious issues (and forums) on DU: Guns.

I assert that both anti-gun rights and pro-gun rights groups are pushy. Will (and should) this statement be nuked?

[Ignis]

379. Not quite the same thing: You're giving equal scorn to both "sides."

Whereas I've yet to hear you present the claim that any (let alone all, or most, or a significant percentage) of meat-eaters are "pushy."

But the message has been repeatedly sent--through both action and inaction--that it's OK to personally attack animal rights activists on DU, even if they are DUers. So hell with it, enjoy!

[Abin Sur]

382. Incorrect. I am *extremely* pro-gun rights, but I recognize that the NRA is, indeed, "pushy",

in spite of the fact that I agree with their agenda.

As for the relative pushiness of meat-eaters vs. vegetarians, I can't think of a single example of someone insisting that vegetarians start eating meat, or even trying to say that refusing to eat meat is immoral...whereas there are vegetarians who are trying to make it harder for people to eat meat, and asserting that eating meat is immoral.

My conclusion, therefore, is that vegans & animal rights activists are more likely to be "pushy" about these issues than meat-eaters who aren't animal rights activists.

Disagree?

[Ignis]

385. "I can't think of a single example of someone insisting that vegetarians start eating meat"

DU has a search function. That very idea (or a corollary, such as the one that vegetarian parents are "abusing" their children, etc.) pops up in almost every thread about vegetarianism or animal rights at DU.

Enjoy! :hi:

[Abin Sur]

389. Let me know when the meat-eating equivalent of PETA arises, spending time and money

to persuade people that vegetarianism is immoral. Until then...

As for searching DU, please feel free to do so. You're the one making the assertion that there are boatloads of people arguing that not eating meat is immoral, so it's up to you to document it.

[Motown_Johnny]

179. I was just trying to make a point (and quoting Eric Cartman)

They are beautiful but they are very similar to cows or pigs. If eating these other animals is acceptable then eating something that can also be ridden shouldn't be any different.

[backscatter712]

33. Aside from the "Horses are lovable!" factor, what's wrong with this?

We kill and eat tasty animals all the time. What's different about horses?

People eat horse in Europe all the time.

[RainDog]

58. there is nothing wrong with this. people have an emotional attachment to horses

as you note - it's standard fare in Europe.

when my niece was a toddler, horsemeat was her favorite deli meat. she wasn't horrible. she was Belgian.

[femrap]

76. dupe. nt

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abin Sur]

137. It's like the time I was eating venison in the break room.

One of my co-workers asked me what I was eating, and when she found out it was wild game she made a disgusted "Eew!" sound, and asked me how I could eat it. I asked if she was a vegetarian...she wasn't...and then asked why it was any different than eating a cow.

Her only explanation was that eating anything wild was "disgusting".

I didn't offer to share.

[RebelOne]

375. Well, no none would be shocked if anyone else

ate venison in the break room where I used to work. Until I was laid off in 2010, I was a copy editor for 30 hunting and fishing magazines across the U.S. The editors would bring in venison sausages and jerky frequently. Out of the 30 people in my office, I was the only vegetarian. I would take the venison home for my dogs. I do not eat meat, but there was no reason I should deny my dogs meat because they are natural carnivores.

[Abin Sur]

384. I *love* venison jerky.

Every year my brother bags a deer in his backyard (he lives in rural Iowa), and sends me a few pounds of it.

[femrap]

73. And you'd eat cats

and dogs because the Chinese do? Guess you're just a nice little follower.

[backscatter712]

88. You're ranting and raving, but you have no argument except the "squick" factor.

There is zero moral difference between eating a horse, eating a cow, eating a cat or eating a chicken.

They're all non-human animals, they've all got meat on them, and somewhere in the world, people kill and eat them.

[Codeine]

272. Personal attacks to do not qualify as cogent arguments

for why we should arbitrarily divide animals into categories regarding edibility based on nothing but cuteness as our criteria. Especially when one considers that horsemeat has been a common, non-controversial food product for centuries.

[sibelian]

373. Carnivore meat's actually not very good for you.

It's also not as tasty. Herbivore meat's the healthier option.

[LWolf]

289. They are "loveable," if you understand and know them. That's not the point, though.

The point is that the modern horse has been domesticated and bred to be working partners, not food.

Eating your partner is unethical. So is eating your dependents.

I like my horses better, and trust them more, than most people.

I'd rather see those that think eating them is okay become dinner than any horse out there.

[killbotfactory]

35. This was re-legalized because horses were being abandoned due to the economy

People can't afford horses, and couldn't slaughter them, so they were being abandoned. Leaving them to run loose, get injured, and starve to death. The ban on horse slaughter caused a lot of unintended problems.

I guess letting horses die from neglect is more humane than slaughtering them?

[jberryhill]

38. They should be free to starve to death!

[TBF]

40. Because that would be the only option? When you are 65 and no longer useful

I will use the same reasoning in my argument for slaughtering seniors for food ...

Homeless folks, the unemployed ... the possibilities here are endless in the quest for profit.

[killbotfactory]

50. Well, if a republican becomes president, maybe slaughtering the poor and elderly will be legalized?

They would rather do that than have the government help provide for them.

[TBF]

54. We don't even have to wait for a repub - we're getting all these great benefits right now. nt

[jberryhill]

52. Were you adopting abandoned and neglected horses?

The GAO laid out the "other option":

--------

Congress imposed a back-door ban on horse slaughter in 2006 to try to improve humane conditions, but a new government report says it has backfired and the same horses are now being exported for slaughter in Canada and Mexico, and they likely are suffering more along the journey.

The Government Accountability Office said the policy has led to “unintended consequences” such as depressed prices for all horses and an increase in reports of animal neglect, abuse and abandonment. GAO said Congress and the Obama administration may need to revisit the entire issue.

“Those horses are traveling farther to meet the same end in foreign slaughtering facilities where U.S. humane slaughtering protections do not apply,” GAO said in unusually blunt language that said that the horses are sometimes shipped in too-small containers for hundreds of miles, and that the inspection regime is too lax to help.

[TBF]

64. Oh for gods sake - like there are only one or two options to every situation.

How about "end horse slaughter" - imprison folks who violate. Throw them in jail here in TX so they don't get out. What is so hard about that?

Horses are abandoned - do auctions like you do with gangster's cars and sell them. My daughter would love to have a horse for $50. What is so difficult about this? Nope, that won't happen because some dickhead saw a way to make a profit ...

[jberryhill]

75. Yeah, it's the kid who wanted a horsie for $50

...which is where these horses come from.

Buying a horse is the cheapest part of owning a horse. The TRAILER to get it from the auction is going to cost you more.

Ponies go as low as $200 at the Chincoteague auction. I can't imagine how cheap they are in horse country.

[TBF]

92. It depends upon where you live -

I grew up with horses (my grandfather raised them) so my view on this would be different I suppose. My first horse was a gift from a family who's daughter was going to college, and we already had a trailer. The only expense was hay, and that was inexpensive where I lived. In the suburbs it's a different ball game ...

[killbotfactory]

79. Regardless of intent, it was a bad law, and was rightfully overturned.

It made conditions worse for horses in general. When a law tries to address a problem, and only causes it to become worse, a responsible government should overturn it.

[bluestate10]

153. You can buy your daughter a horse for $50 if you wanted to.

But, my guess is that you want to pan President Obama for any perceived policy failing.

[petronius]

173. Isn't the 'auctions and adoptions' strategy what we've been doing for the last decade?

It didn't work... :shrug:

[jberryhill]

177. That was the issue in the BLM report on unadoptable horses in 2008

[LeftyMom]

181. Wild horse populations aren't a problem.

Ranchers who want to use public lands for subsidized grazing are the problem. Wild horses are a reinstated native species and ought to have priority over a destructive use of public lands for private profit.

[jberryhill]

191. Native species?

Horses are not native to this continent.

They're not even native to Europe.

[LeftyMom]

193. Horses existed on this continent until shortly after the arrival of the Clovis people.

So the restoration of wild herds of horses corrects a problem created by earlier human populations.

[jberryhill]

202. Not after 5,000 years of selective breeding it doesn't

[LeftyMom]

206. 5,000 years did not erase 55 milllion years of horse evolution

Honestly, that's just stupid.

[jberryhill]

218. Yeah, my basset hound is a grey wolf /nt

[LeftyMom]

221. That's just silly.

Horse populations don't vary nearly as much as dogs. The Victorian hobby of breeding animals into stupid and cruel forms was visited on animals more easily toted about on social calls.

[Name removed]

318. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kali]

330. cattle resemble bison too, so I expect your support for them too

right

[Kali]

327. bull shit

they are not native, they are feral livestock

remove all private livestock from public land and "wild" horses will destroy it in fast order, you are fooling yourself by blaming ranchers for this

yes they want grazing availability for cattle, but those cattle are managed and limited in numbers by regulation - and wild horses would need to be as well in a few short years of exclusive use

ranchers and cattle are just another use of public land, them being there or not has no ultimate effect on the impacts of unchecked numbers of horses

[underseasurveyor]

339. So says the bias cattle rancher herself.

If horses are "not native" then your cattle are even less so and should not be feeding freely on public lands for your personal profit at the expense of Wild American Mustangs. Which by the way do FAR less damage to the land than cows. Look at land that has been inhabited by horses over the long term compared to that which is inhabited by cattle over the short term. Cattle damage the environment, FACT! You twist the facts to suit your own interests, personal agenda = free fed cattle.

As far as I'm concerned I'd rather have wild horses using MY public lands and you can take your domestic cows back to the barn where they belong.

Perhaps we should reintroduce the lion to America. They were once a native species on this continent.

[Kali]

348. ooookaaayyyy

1) bias or experience, guess there are a couple ways to look at knowing what one is talking about

2) not a public lands rancher (well, the ranch has a permit for 8 head on one section of BLM, but that is not a significant portion of the ranch) and there are no feral horses around here, although I did adopt one (and a burro) and support a few others that don't do anything but look pretty on the landscape

3) grazing public land is not free (yes it seems cheap on first glance but that is because most have no idea of the history, costs involved, nor the differences between "public" and other types of leases - if it was such a great deal there wouldn't be any available leases anywhere, but there are plenty of them)

2) you seem not to know basic facts about the two animals you are discussing, for example grazing behavior and biting techniques, nor the different nutritional requirements between the monogastric equine vs ruminants, not to mention facts of managing herding animals

unmanaged horses will destroy the ground way faster than managed cattle, sorry there is just no basis for your assertion

3) I'd prefer not to share the public lands with other humans but that isn't the purpose or function of them so I guess we both have to compromise on that one

4) plenty of lions around the west, even a few wolves but no sabertooths, mammoths, ground sloths etc so the pretend reintroduction of an equine component is not remotely "balancing" the system in any way

[underseasurveyor]

363. But you are a rancher and you do have a special interest none the less.

I'll grant you "free" was a misnomer however given that ranchers and farmers alike receive government subsidies and many other 'perks' that taxpayers foot the bill for, well I'm sure you can see why the term "free" was inserted. Oops my bad.

Your continued insistence that horses are somehow "feral" and destroy the environment is weak and one-sided at best. Are you saying that before humans began ranging cattle the land was being destroyed by wild horses? BIG LOL. So ridiculous. Yes Kali, cattle are saving the environment from those destructive horses that were here hundreds of years before the white man brought his cattle in to save the land. hahahahahaha Oh and there were prehistoric horses in america so it could be said that horses are native to this country. Just like the American Lion, which looks very much like the African Lion, was native to this country which BTW is not the Cougar, just a little FYI.

And your big scary scientific terminology Kali. Monogastric vs. ruminants? OOh I'm so impressed. Suffice it to say that I am familiar enough with the eating habits and digestive systems of many types of critters on land and sea. I just don't feel the need to try and impress anyone by using 'big words' to give the impression that I'm some sort of an expert. I mean how boorish, wouldn't you agree?

Facts are that wild horse populations, just like everything else in nature, find a balance of living. Predator and prey alike. Ranchers wiped out the natural predators like the wolf, the mountain lion, etc. Before that elk and buffalo roamed the plains in herds by the millions along with huge herds of horses long before ranchers were here. Sheep and cattle ranchers slaughtered those predators because they killed their livestock. Ranchers put up fences disrupting migrating patterns of native species and created all kinds of ills for many natives.

And you tout that it's the wild horse that's to blame for destroying the land. I work for a private environmental firm and we've heard all the excuses and the lies and the reasoning and then we see the destruction that these same people say they're not responsible for. It's simply willful and self-righteous greed that are the number one cause and as long as those people get what they want to Hell with fact. It's sad that it's these continued lies and misinformation and attitudes that are a main reason that millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars have to go into restoring the damage that, yes, cattle and crops and other "special interests" are responsible for but then "they" turn around and blame something else, like wild horses.

You may or may not have many but your cows do more damage to the land than any herd of horses will ever do and your empty assertions that that is not true is willfully untrue. And yes there are PLENTY of scientific studies and basis for my assertions and PLENTY of scientific basis and fact to prove your assertions totally and completely wrong.

You wanna grow cows? Go ahead, but feed them and keep them in your own barn... so to speak.

[Kali]

369. speaking of bias

sorry those words were too big for you, they are basic biology and have real meaning in terms of ecology. Not sure what "environmental"org you work for but it obviously isn't in any science or land management division, probably lobbying or pr would be my bet. your knowledge of prehistoric, historic, and current ecology is lacking.

[underseasurveyor]

370. It's sad that subtleties are lost on you.

I didn't say I didn't understand, far from it, I said I didn't feel the need to show off by throwing out scientific terminology. Now if you care to get deeper into biological sciences by all means we can go there.

Your arguments are lacking in any real knowledge of, well many things, but includes prehistoric history and what I find hilarious is that you try and hide behind scientific language as if tossing out a few fancy terms will give the impression that you know exactly what you're talking about. Now you try and turn it on me. Laughable in deed, Miss.

The firm I work for is privately owned and operated and not an org or PR and lobby for no one. City, state, and federal contracts mostly, including some private work all with a smattering of global works including the South Pacific, Caribbean, Mexico and South America and includes both land and sea studies and management of the environment and its flora and fauna.

Obviously your perceptions are off just a titch.

[MineralMan]

302. In most areas, you can get a free horse for your daughter.

But, then, you have to feed it and house it and have the vet visit it. Then there's the tack if your daughter wants to ride it, and stable fees if you don't have facilities on your property to keep it.

A cheap horse is like a cheap boat. It's really, really expensive.

Here in Minnesota, horses are available for next to nothing. Many go unwanted. Anyone who thinks it would be "fun" to own a horse simply hasn't owned a horse. It's damned hard work and very costly.

[hack89]

306. That $50 pony will cost you thousands annually

especially if it get sick.

What happens when horses are too old or lame to ride? How do you dispose of unwanted livestock that is humane?

[Kali]

326. people can't give them away around here

your daughter can pick up all the free horses she can care for - hell, I have 6 or 7 I would give away - I might even pay for shipping if they weren't going to slaughter.

[backscatter712]

41. This is a valid point.

One of my college friends who went to vet school at Colorado State, and is a BIG horse person, was in favor of this bill, because it would allow horses who would otherwise be abandoned, neglected or abused to be put down humanely.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoeyT]

101. I doubt horse meat will be in everything.

It costs a lot more than cow meat. You don't mix wine into water to make the water last longer.
McDonalds hamburgers are made of lowest grade beef and wood. It would take something awfully cheap to compete with that. Horse meat isn't cheap. At all.

If anything this was a nod to the people that can afford horse meat and were getting pissed off because they couldn't get it.

[PeaceNikki]

44. Thank you for rationally explaining that.

It makes a lot more sense the emotional headline.

[treestar]

309. Oh how dare you learn a few facts before deciding!

You should have just let the OP and its title manipulate you into instant outrage! That would have been more fun! :sarcasm:

[Fruittree]

381. The real question is and should be :

Who gave the Earth and all its inhabitants to humans? Do you honestly defend the notion that humans have the right to decide who lives and who dies based on what suits us? Is there no such thing as respecting an individual of whatever species' intrinsic right to live?
Also, does anyone else wonder why there are so many horses in the first place - breeding for profit perhaps? This is where the issue of unwanted horses should be addressed. It's the same problem with dog or cat overpopulation. We need to remove the profit factor from breeding animals unless we're willing to deal with the care of all these lives we create.
Read a bit about the reality of horse slaughter before you so casually defend it.

[HereSince1628]

37. Hey, I'm sure this is gonna make MANY jobs...

or maybe not MANY but many or a few more than there were...and besides, we need this so we can have REAL baseballs again.

[Poll_Blind]

39. He's a president you can have a beer and a horse taco with. nt

PB

[TBF]

42. I think I'm going to be ill. Thanks PB. nt

[Skittles]

258. SCHEDULING POLL_BLIND FOR ASS KICKING

*EGREGIOUS*

[MattBaggins]

43. Horse meat is delish

Horse salami is one of the best I have ever eaten.

[TBF]

48. That'll be great on a campaign poster

Obama 2012: A horse in every pot!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

51. I tried it in France, where there's a small market for it

and you occasionally find special horsemeat butcher shops. I've heard that other countries have fanciers as well. I'm not knocking it for those who've acquired a taste for it, but the horsemeat steak I tried was too strange for me and I had trouble swallowing it down. I've never tried any salami, though.

[Parker CA]

132. I agree. I've had it prepared many ways in Italy and it's fantastic.

[NMMNG]

56. This is terrible

But why is it any more outrageous than slaughtering cows, pigs, chickens, etc, for human consumption? Do horses suffer more than other animals when slaughtered?

[jberryhill]

57. No, horses suffer more when they are shipped live for slaughter abroad

Which is what was happening.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4896895

[TBF]

65. You've repeated that several times in this thread - as if that is the only alternative. nt

[NMMNG]

72. So we have to slaughter them here

or ship them elsewhere to be slaughtered? Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

[jberryhill]

83. Read the GAO report

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11228.pdf

Observe the starving horses on page 25.

[NMMNG]

94. So the way to deal with neglect/maltreatment of horses

is to eat them?

[killbotfactory]

106. According to the GOA report, the amount of horses sent for slaughter remained unchanged

The only thing that changed is that they were being treated more inhumanely along the way, as well as increasing the incidences of abuse and neglect.

[NMMNG]

127. I guess we've found the solution then

Tell people not to kill, they resort to more abuse and more "inhumane" killing methods. The only solution is to legalize killing again.

We should generalize that to solve more of our problems.

Get rid of the Humane Society and other groups that try to end animal abuse/neglect. Just legalize slaughter of all animals and use them for food.

Forget working to prevent abuse and neglect of children. Just "humanely" slaughter all of the abused/neglected children, then ship the meat to the starving children in poor areas/nations. Kill two problems with one stone.



:sarcasm:

[killbotfactory]

133. What is with the constant conflating of livestock and humans?

Horses are not people.

[NMMNG]

139. No, they aren't

They aren't so crass as to promote the notion of "humane slaughter", or to pretend that legalized slaughter is the only alternative when humans refuse to cease being abusive asshats.

[killbotfactory]

154. There is no will to spend money on the humane care of unwanted horses.

The government, thanks to the republicans, can barely help the humane treatment of fellow human beings, ffs.

In the meantime this law was increasing the amount of abuse, neglect, and abandonment suffered by horses, while not putting a dent in the amount of horses slaughtered every year. It was rightfully overturned.

[Scout]

329. the LAW didn't increase the abuse ... HUMANS increased the abuse n/t

[jberryhill]

113. Well, there you go..

I mean, after all, what's the point of studying a problem when volumes of reports on this particular subject since 2006 were not blessed by your input.

Bureau of Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses. GAO-09-77. October 9, 2008.

[Vattel]

107. Do those horses have to starve or be slaughtered?

Are those the only alternatives? If as a nation we cared more about the well-being of horses, we would find other ways to deal with the situation. But we think that somehow it is far more important that our lives go well than that the lives of horses go well. That prejudice against the welfare of those who are different is a fundamental moral flaw, responsible for horrendous amounts of human as well as nonhuman suffering.

[TBF]

121. That is my argument as well -

but it is like everything with capitalism - there's a way to make a buck (and I've gotta believe those pet food and fast food chain contracts are lucrative) ... it is a sad commentary on our society.

[jberryhill]

131. Well perhaps you can provide some alternatives

The fact of the matter is that the ban was having an adverse impact on the welfare of horses.

Sometimes results are counter-intuitive.

Just like the study from the University of Georgia today which (like other studies) found that abstinence "education" increases teen pregnancy.

The numbers are absolutely clear, but you try telling someone who is unable to do anything than process at an emotional level that "telling kids not to have sex increases pregnancies", and they simply won't agree with the proposition.

Horse sense.

[Vattel]

281. Seriously?

It isn't obvious to you that animal welfare laws could be passed to require horses to receive better treatment so that they wouldn't fare worse as a result of the ban? There is no political will to pass such laws and that's why we are faced with bleak alternatives. This has nothing to do with emotions vs. reason. It has everything to do with basic moral values and the political consequences of those values.

[femrap]

66. Well, I can certainly

add to my Ignore List via this thread.

Obama's new motto....'a horse in every pot.' Thx for the laugh. He makes me sick. They all make me sick. Fucking sick.

[Beacool]

68. I think that I'm going to be sick!!!

Notwithstanding that 70% of Americans oppose horse slaughter, that President Obama made a campaign promise to permanently ban horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption (horses can be sent to Mexico and Canada), that documentation of animal cruelty, slaughterhouse stench, fluid runoff and negative community impact exists, it is taxpayers that will bear the costs!

Disgusting.......

:puke:

[ProSense]

71. Here:

"I think that I'm going to be sick!!!"

..let me help!

It appears the only purpose of the piece is to create the impression that Obama did something negative. Does anyone know what's in the bill? Why did the House (Republicans') version maintain the ban? Why did the Senate (Democratic caucus) lift it?

Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter (PDF)

Here's the roll call, 30 Senate Republicans voted against the bill.

[Juneboarder]

81. The 1% must have a lot of horses...

Why else would this law have passed? :shrug:

[Youth Uprising]

86. I was just thinking that.

Food for the 1% lol

[Juneboarder]

91. Edited to delete duplicate post.

[Juneboarder]

93. They can have their horses and eat 'em too!

:crazy:

[Juneboarder]

98. And hey!!

Welcome to DU btw!!! :hi:

[Youth Uprising]

110. Thanks!

I've been here for a while, I'm just more of a lurker.

[Youth Uprising]

82. Oh, come on!

This is getting ridiculous. Every day I see negative headlines about Obama, most of them justified but this one seems almost too far fetched to be real. Is Obama actively trying to piss off his base and make himself look like some sort of evil comic book villain? Is he really that tone deaf? Or does he just not care? What next? Is he going to legalize the slaughter of puppies and kittens as well?

[TBF]

87. I can't change the facts - but as I said to ProSense I don't think Obama

would be the only politician to sign such a thing. In this society profit comes first, no doubt this would've been pushed through no matter who was president. I just personally find it disgusting.

[Youth Uprising]

104. I get you. ; )

I concur with your assessment, I was just expressing my incredulity with this president.

[ellisonz]

270. It was a rider on a bill to fund the entire government...

...he had no choice.

This is the Republicans fault. And the OP article is a shit hit piece.

"Slaughter opponents pushed a measure cutting off funding for horse meat inspections through Congress in 2006 after other efforts to pass outright bans on horse slaughter failed in previous years. Congress lifted the ban in a spending bill President Obama signed into law Nov. 18 to keep the government afloat until mid-December."

http://news.yahoo.com/horses-could-soon-slaughtered-meat-us-080907323.html

[Vattel]

84. and not a single Dem voted against it.

30 Repugs voted against it.

[jberryhill]

99. Because the ban - enacted in 2006 - had counterproductive effects on horse welfare

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11228.pdf

[Vattel]

111. see post 107

[Kadie]

96. Are you sure Obama legalized it? The bill providing for the funding expires on Sept. 30, 2012.

11/29/2011 5:38PM
Language banning horse slaughter is omitted from legislation

A federal agriculture bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on Nov. 18 did not include a prohibition on funding the inspection of horse meat for the first time since 2005, leading to concerns among some animal-rights organizations that the slaughter of horses may resume in the United States.

Language that prohibited the funding of inspections of horse meat was added to the 2005 bill as a way to force the three horse slaughterhouses still in existence in the United States out of business. Since 2005, Congress has passed a continuing resolution that kept the prohibition in place, but the language prohibiting the funding was removed this year in the specific appropriations bill, largely with the support of Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia.

Critics of the slaughter of horses contend that the practice is inhumane and inappropriate for horses. Supporters say that the slaughterhouses provide U.S. horse owners with the means to dispose of unwanted animals.

According to a study by the Government Accountability Office, 138,000 horses in the United States, from a population of nine million, were shipped to slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada in 2010. The number was a 660 percent increase over 2007, the study said.

The bill providing for the funding expires on Sept. 30, 2012. Another appropriations bill or continuing resolution will need to be passed then, and in the meantime, lobbyists for both sides are expected to argue for the reinstatement of a ban or the continuation of funding. Because of uncertainty over whether the funding will remain in place past that date, horse-industry lobbyists said that it is unlikely that slaughterhouses will open in the next year, given the investment that would be needed to establish a facility.

more...
http://www.drf.com/news/language-banning-horse-slaughter-omitted-legislation

[NYC_SKP]

97. Obama? How about Congress. All 30 "Nay" votes were Republicans. Details:

Democrats unanimously supported it, AFAIK:

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/208

Methinks there's more in this bill than the horse slaughter part.

[SidDithers]

108. Why even bother trying anymore...

:banghead:

Sid

[redqueen]

301. + 1

[Kadie]

112. Just posted this link above...

http://www.drf.com/news/language-banning-horse-slaughter-omitted-legislation

It reads a little different than the headline in the OP.

[TBF]

115. That could be true - I saw that Ron Paul opposed it so I wondered what else was in there

nt

[jberryhill]

148. Those where the "Neigh!" votes, methinks

[TBF]

298. Yes - it's an appropriations bill

so it's no wonder 30 repubs didn't sign - they don't want to spend $$$ especially if it is on things dems want.

I guess after reading all the replies back and forth (and additional articles on it - like the perspective of the GAO and pro-slaughter lobby) my position is that I need to eat even less red meat than I already do (which is quite little). If folks don't eat it they won't sell it. I'd still like to see a ban, but given what we're dealing with in this country we are lucky if they are not eating us (which probably comes next if the WH doesn't veto the bill today about locking up Americans forever) ...

[Bluerthanblue]

378. a voice of reason-

:hi:

methinks you make a good point.

[roody]

102. As a vegetarian, I do not understand the repulsion against

eating horses. All animals are sentient beings. Love them; don't eat them.

[TBF]

117. Yes, my sister has gone that route and I have cut back meat a lot.

Will be cutting back even more now - especially when I don't know the source as in restaurants

[bluestate10]

155. That is your view. Understand that other people don't share that view. nt

[Codeine]

273. precisely.

I've been a vegan for over two decades and I can't see why this is worse than the billions of chickens that get offed annually in death factories across the country.

[2bfree]

325. Exactly!

Why do we eat cows but not horses? I choose not to eat any animal products but I'm not really understanding why so many are upset.

[EFerrari]

105. We need a forum for "things not to read before dinner."

Look out, Leona. To some people you look like lunch.

[TBF]

124. She is beautiful! nt

[bluestate10]

158. Do horses have cloven hooves? nt

[EFerrari]

194. Only the really bad ones.

:)

[SidDithers]

114. So? Cows and pigs are OK, but horses are not?...

Horse meat roast. Looks delicious.



http://www.metro.ca/recettes/46/horse-meat.en.html

Sid

[bluestate10]

161. Looks like really lean steak. Sort of fillet without the fat. nt

[Recovered Repug]

116. Since horses in the US aren't generally raised for food,

many may have been treated with drugs that are banned for use in animals intended for human consumption. For instance, phenylbutazone (aka bute)is commonly used in horses for inflammation and pain treatment. It is also banned for use in animals intended for food. In Europe, if a horse has ever been treated with bute, it can't be used for food. I'm not sure what the standard for the US is/will be.

Wonder if that was considered by the GAO.

[jberryhill]

120. What was the relevant standard in 2006

There are also relevant state laws.

When New Jersey legalized horse meat sales back in 1971 or so, you'd have thought it was the end of the world.

[Major Nikon]

129. I slaughtered this horse last Tuesday. I think it's startin' to turn. ...

-- Washington Hogwallop

[bluestate10]

134. Herds of wild horses are a big problem in parts of the west.

The policy is thought out, I am ok with going ahead with it.

[TBF]

167. Mostly "thought out" by the folks who are going to make a lot of bucks in the

slaughter houses, but that's capitalism. I understand completely.

[MadHound]

142. I have no problem with this,

In fact, we need to have a method and market for horses and horse meat. The fact of the matter is that the situation we have now, with horses being shipped to Canada or Mexico to be slaughtered, or left to starve in the pasture by owners unable to care for them anymore, is simply intolerable. I would rather see a quick death at a slaughterhouse than a slow death by disease or starvation in the field.

[jberryhill]

146. That's exactly what the GAO found

"Comprehensive, national data are lacking, but state, local government, and animal welfare organizations report a rise in investigations for horse neglect and more abandoned horses since 2007. For example, Colorado data showed that investigations for horse neglect and abuse increased more than 60 percent from 975 in 2005 to 1,588 in 2009. Also, California, Texas, and Florida reported more horses abandoned on private or state land since 2007."

[MadHound]

151. A lot of small farms are being forced into a no win situation.

They can't afford to continue to feed and take care of their horse(lost job, etc.), and the price of shipping the animal off to Canada is preemptively expensive. They can't sell the horse, or even give it away, so the animal is left to die of slow starvation and disease. Some might shoot the animal themselves, but then what are they doing with the carcass? Leaving it to rot and spread disease.

At the local livestock auctions each week, the price for horses, even good ones, is way down, and many horses they simply can't give away.

[riderinthestorm]

238. Yup, [phone] nt

[RegieRocker]

144. The question folks is "Will they label it?"

So I can freaking know what I am not going to eat!

[TBF]

276. Thank you -

out of all of this that would probably be the regulation that would be worth putting time into - I definitely want to know what they are doing with their new-found horse meat. I tend not to eat fast food (you never know what they're putting in there) but I also want to know if it's in pet food etc.

[nobodyspecial]

149. I hope everyone condemning this does not eat meat at all

Why is it OK to slaughter a cow and not a horse? I don't get the outrage. Just because we "like" one animal more than others, their death is not any less of an abuse. Meat is meat.

Unless you don't eat meat, you have no argument here.

[Major Nikon]

152. Cute animals have more rights

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/15/do-cute-animals-get-better-protection/

[JanMichael]

172. I don't eat meat so my anger at this is a-ok. nt.

[nobodyspecial]

175. Well, you do have a logically consistent position

Are you angry about all animal slaughter? Do you think meat consumption should be banned?

[LeftyMom]

190. I'm vegan,

and I think anybody who is okay with treating horses (or cows or pigs) like this is fucked up.

[Ignis]

264. +1

:fistbump:

[stuntcat]

386. yep +1

the waste of raising/processing ANY animals for food is just a shame on our whole species. The land and food and energy wasted to get meat into humans is one of the biggest things ruining the future, there is no excusing ANY of it.

Even if someone HATES animals, they should still stop supporting the industry of meat. They should maybe set up a cat/dog/squirrel torture studio in their own home to make up for all the suffering they'd miss out on causing.

[undeterred]

201. I don't eat meat at all.

And I think it is not ok to slaughter an animal unless you are starving or for humane reasons.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

156. Why the hell was it ever illegal.

To say that you can kill and eat cows, pigs and sheep but not horses is just daft. Either ban it all or (more sensibly) legalise it all, but saying that you can only eat non-cute animals is just silly.

[TBF]

159. Found another article about this with more details

This is from a pro-slaughter group -


U.S. horse slaughter plants in the very early stages of planning, proponent says
The last horse slaughter plants in the U.S. shut down in 2007. But now Congress has cleared the way for horse slaughter plants to open again.

BY SONYA COLBERG AND CHRIS CASTEEL
Published: November 27, 2011

Horse slaughter plants have become legal again, after Congress quietly unbridled restrictions on processing horse meat. President Barack Obama signed the enabling bill on Nov. 18.

Entities already are considering opening plants in Oregon, and possibly Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Georgia and Missouri, slaughter plant proponent Sue Wallis said.

Between 120,000 to 200,000 horses will be killed for human consumption per year, she estimates.

Read more: http://newsok.com/u.s.-horse-slaughter-plants-in-the-very-early-stages-of-planning-proponent-says/article/3626718#ixzz1f9lgCE00

[cottonseed]

160. First world problems.

[Kali]

332. yep

nailed it

[Tsiyu]

162. Great

Now those with horses will have to face having those horses stolen in the middle of the night and carted off to the slaughterhouse.

"Horse thieving" will be a new way to make a buck in America.

Wonderful.

People suck. Our politicians suck even worse.

And a great, big apology to horses everywhere.

[Bladian]

163. Why is everyone panicking?

"Oh no, that's awful! We can't eat horses! What? Cows and pigs? Nope, that's okay."

[TBF]

166. Some people view horses as pets - much like dogs or cats

But I absolutely understand the point that other animals are slaughtered. So, yes, it is somewhat emotional for some of us. Will concede that point.

[nobodyspecial]

168. Yep, I don't get the disconnect

[sufrommich]

171. It's just the latest fake outrage. nt

[uppityperson]

170. Unrec for misleading headline and false information.

For instance, "On November 18th, as the country was celebrating Thanksgiving". If they can't get that fact right, why even read further. Fri, Nov 18 was thanksgiving? Hahahahahahahahahaa.

And yes, I read all the replies here, which helped change my mind from "wtf" to "oh, tiny part of a larger bill and it makes sense since the ban didn't make sense". And yes, I read the issues with the ban this overturned. All those horses were sentenced to death before this, and were sentenced to torture before death. Now they can die without being tortured.

[TBF]

174. Obama signed the bill -

you can debate that all you want but it's correct. As for celebrating Thanksgiving - it was all week here in Texas as the schools are off.

If it makes you feel better I know that any other president would've done the same. It's the capitalist way ...

[jberryhill]

180. Tell THAT to Mr. Ed

[azul]

184. We've bred them to be our useful companions.

And they turned out to be our superiors in many ways. Their nobility and loyalty and bravery command respect. We expose our further descent into baseness and depravity by mistreating these magnificent creatures.

[jberryhill]

185. NOW WE KNOW WHY WE'LL NEVER GET OUR PONIES!!

[msanthrope]

288. Thread win. nt

[apocalypsehow]

186. My daughter wants a pet pig for Christmas, and announced she was no longer consuming bacon.

She informed me of this fact in the Burger King drive-thru, just before we picked up her order - a mustard whopper.

I told her "guess Elsie loses out, huh?"

There was actually an "All in the family" episode about this back in the 70s, Archie got tricked into eating roast horse.

Anyway, that's all I got.

[LeftyMom]

188. If overpopulation is the problem, horses can euthanized.

Don't let anybody pretend this is about caring for horses, because that's bullshit. Transportation is hard on them, and of course slaughter is horrific. They have to be hoisted up by one of their legs (usually breaking it in the process) prior to having their throats slit, and of course horses go absolutely apeshit when they're afraid, especially if they see or hear other horses in pain or smell blood.

This is what horse slaughter looks like, and yes this is a regulated US plant (filmed prior to the ban): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyF3IcIK2_A

[EFerrari]

196. My mother adopted two from a rescue place in SoCal

They changed her whole life. She was on track to die a workaholic's desk death. That was 18 years ago. It was amazing.

[LeftyMom]

199. My parents boarded other people's horses when I was small.

I'm quite fond of horses because I spent more time with them than with other kids, for my first few years. Later we moved farther into town, and town moved out and the place where we lived when my parents were being back to the landish brokeassed hippies was subdivided. Oh well.

[EFerrari]

205. Other way around for me. I grew up in the burbs

and didn't come out here until Rosie came here to be with the horses because her commute didn't give her enough time. There are developments next to and below us, though. The crash slowed that down a little, for now.

[riderinthestorm]

209. I board 40 and have 8 of my own. Euthanasia is not that simple.

It costs a fortune. If you haven't done it in the Chicago area, it's $100 to get the vet to put it down, and $300 or more per horse to get the renderer out to the farm. If you are at your wits end with a horse, that $400+ looms as insurmountable when faced with a choice between feeding the kids or the horse for another month. Of course if you own your own property you can rent the back-hoe at several hundreds of dollars/day to bury it onsite....

There absolutely needs to be a humane slaughter route in the US for livestock owners. Disposing of livestock carcasses by caring owners must be part of the equation. That includes ALL humane options.

[LeftyMom]

212. This slaughter is not humane. It's nothing close to humane.

Further, people who don't have the sense and the foresight to realize that horses, as ridiculously delicate as they can be, will eventually get old or get sick, and that they're eventually going to die? They're not smart or compassionate enough to be entrusted with an animal in the first place.

Having a plan for a responsible and decent end is part of caring for an animal. Sure, it's more expensive with horses. EVERYTHING is more expensive with horses.

[riderinthestorm]

216. We don't know that it can't be humane in the US. There's never been a chance.

Many horse owners believe the horse shelters will take their old horses. Or they believe their friends with acreage will take on their old friends as pasture mates ("Mitzy has ALWAYS loved Muffin"...). There's nothing like REALITY about the ultimate end for this type of large livestock. I own at least 1 horse (out of my 9) acquired by an owner who was in sudden straits and couldn't afford to keep her anymore, instantly (her daughter who owned the beloved horse was killed in a drunk driving accident, and the destitute parents were awarded custody. Of course they reneged on the board contract and we ended up with the navicular, elderly unsaleable horse).

Advocates for humane slaughter like Temple Grandin insist it can be done. I believe her.

[LeftyMom]

219. It was legal in the US until 2006

I posted video taken in the US prior to that ban. It was not anything resembling humane.

[riderinthestorm]

224. 5 years on and many more educated people can make it different.

I'm sure of it.

Problem is, this is a messy business. Slaughtering ANY animal is gruesome. We don't want to "go there" in our psyche. I understand. I have 2 other horses I own that are simply pets and I can't fathom putting them down (and I own the acreage, backhoe and finances to do it if I wished).

I just have enough experience in this industry to know that if push comes to shove, the owners will simply take the animal to Shipshewana IN (or another kller auction site), where that animal will face a horrific end after many days in MX or Canada). I can offer to drive that poor horse to Dekalb IL in a far more humane situation (without the attendant horror and suffering) if/when that plant re-opens.

[LeftyMom]

226. There's no way to kill horses humanely and leave their flesh edible. nt

[riderinthestorm]

234. If it comes to a choice between feeding the family or the horse, people will choose their kids

So it behooves us to work to make it humane (and edible for European markets so they pay top dollar and we ensure it's done correctly).

[LeftyMom]

241. People who make that decision about their dog go to prison. nt

[riderinthestorm]

243. Nope, no we don't have that generally happen. I have too many feral cats

and dogs that prove you wrong on that score. Many, many, many animal shelters across the globe would attest to the fact that people who abandon small animals go to jail, rarely.

You want to believe we can isolate WHO is the problem here but that's not that case. People dump stray dogs and cats ALL the time. People are beginning to do so with horses. Since they are so much larger, its harder to ignore. When you hit an abandoned horse on the road, it tends to kill people while when you hit an abandoned dog on the road, its taken to a vet or shelter and housed with minimal damage to the person/vehicle.

[Kali]

335. I really admire your calmness in trying to explain reality to the idealistic

much as I admire their idealism at times.

I too think that the complex problem needs work by all concerned. Idealism moves things and reality tempers extremism, which unchecked ALWAYS leads to unintended consequences.

[riderinthestorm]

377. Right back at you. I've been avoiding this thread as it got longer and longer

and knew it was probably futile to get involved again but saw this and decided to at least give you a virtual wave....

[hack89]

310. Millions of dogs are slaughtered annually in America.

it is as easy as dropping them off at the local dog shelter.

[Kali]

334. we are talking about cutting medicare and SS

who the hell is going to pay for medical euthanasia AND then the real expense: disposal of thousands of dead horses?

[akbacchus_BC]

This is BS! n/t

[akbacchus_BC]

195. This is BS! n/t

[undeterred]

197. Do we still have the puke icon?

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[csziggy]

203. Since slaughter of horses was banned in the US prices for horses has plummeted

Because there is no bottom to the market. Over the last several years many rescue organizations have been overwhelmed with horses either left at their facilities or horses abandoned to fend for themselves - often resulting in emaciated animals without adequate food or water running loose or left on other people's property. Part of the reason for abandonment is the drop in the economy - feed and hay have gone up and when people don't have jobs, they can't afford to care for a large animal like a horse. But when they can't sell them for any price, they dump them, hoping that someone else will take care of the poor horse.

In addition, some horses are just a danger and should be disposed of rather than just sold to the next sucker. Meat auctions used to be a way to dispose of these dangerous animals. Euthanizing horses is expensive - the fee for the vet was $150 per horse the last time I had to put down one of my horses. Then you have to get rid of the corpse - we hired a backhoe - minimum price was $300. My mare was put to sleep in 2004 so I expect the cost is much higher now. For someone who is already cash strapped that is prohibitive - and if you don't own your own farm, you also have to find a place to bury the animal.

The major problem I have with slaughter of horses or any animal is that their treatment be as humane as possible. Hopefully, with this change, Obama included stricter rules on how animals should be treated.

If things got tough, I would rather slaughter my horses rather than see it starve - if things were really tough I might even be able to eat one of my horses or let other people eat it rather than see that much meat go to waste. I'm lucky to be able to afford to care for and feed my horses and when they are old and in pain give them a painless death, then give then a final resting spot on the farm where they were born and lived. But that is a luxury many cannot afford.

[jberryhill]

204. So, you hate horses, I take it.

[backscatter712]

207. That's the argument my own friend made.

She's a grad student in equine science at CSU, and is a true horse lover.

She knows the situation well, as do you.

[LeftyMom]

210. These horses aren't going to starving people. They're going to Europe and Japan.

If you do not have the resources to provide an animal with a decent end, you shouldn't take on that responsibility in the first place. A few hundred dollars for a vet visit and a backhoe may be an imposition, but it's not a justification for avoidable cruelty.

[Mimosa]

215. ^ Amen ^

Why should we tolerate cruelty? OR DEFEND IT?

[EFerrari]

222. The idea that you slaughter and eat a horse to be humane seems

uniquely American to me, like burning the village to save it.

[LeftyMom]

225. Man is a rationalizing animal. nt

[killbotfactory]

230. This ban didn't end the slaughter of horses

It just made the practice more cruel.

Having our dirty work sent to other countries, so we can ignore the grim reality of it, seems uniquely American to me. So does upholding and stubbornly defending laws that exacerbate the harm they were intended to prevent.

[EFerrari]

251. If slaughter is inhumane, the answer is not to make that inhumanty an industry. n/t

[csziggy]

227. As I said, I do have the means to give my horses a good end

My horses are my babies - all but one that I now own was born here and have several generations of their ancestors buried on this farm. If it is in my power, these horses will also live long comfortable lives and have a quiet end and be buried here, too.

But many people ended up not being able to even if they had been able to previously. Many people when the economy collapsed had horses they could not longer feed. Those horses were just dumped because there was no market at all.

Frankly I wish more effort was being put into making slaughterhouses more humane for all animals sent there, rather than singling out one species for special treatment. Just because many consider horses worthy of special treatment is not a good reason to ignore the horrors that happen in slaughterhouses to other species. If the money and effort had been spent on that cause rather than banned slaughter of horses, I think that goal could have been reached.

Even when slaughter was banned in the US, many horses were shipped across the borders to be slaughtered in Canada or Mexico. Some had long, horrid trips to get to those places. How is that an improvement?

[LeftyMom]

229. Then ban exportation for slaughter.

There's no way to make horse slaughter humane.

[killbotfactory]

231. The problem is people abandon the horses and they die from neglect, disease, and starvation.

There is no way to make that humane.

[LeftyMom]

232. That is a crime.

We don't slaughter and eat dogs and cats because assholes abandon them. We make a good faith effort to find them new homes. Even though it's expensive and sometimes fruitless.

They didn't ask to be bred. People made that decision and they're people's responsibility.

[riderinthestorm]

236. Horses are ever so much more expsnsive to house and feed until they are re-homed.

To compare that to dogs and cats is laughable. Horses churn up the land, consume a vast amount of valuable resources and their care in their later lives is supremely expensive (thousands of dollars per month). Rescue agencies for equines are completely maxed out. Trying to find a home for an unwanted equine of questionable value is impossible.

People may have all the "responsible" thoughts in the world when they initially take on large livestock. Sometimes reality interferes....

[killbotfactory]

239. I guess we should pass a law banning reality. nt

[riderinthestorm]

246. Reality is that I'm up at 6 am and it's way too late for internet shit.

I'm off for the night. Keep up the good fight. I doubt i'll be back.

[LeftyMom]

240. If the problem is really abandonement, how about this?

1. Horses will be required to be microchipped in a manner similar to dogs and cats, in order to establish their owner's identity.

2. Owners of abandoned horses will be prosecuted for felony neglect. Some states may need to alter neglect laws which currently only protect household pets.

[riderinthestorm]

244. National ID laws and mandatory RFID chips are a HUGE sore spot in livestock operations

I refuse to go off tangent on this but you are WRONG on this issue. Please google why that idea may be the death of small farms in the US....

[LeftyMom]

249. Oh for fuck's sake.

I give not a fig for conspiratorial bullshit.

[csziggy]

245. Yeah, right

People lose their jobs, their homes, their ability to take care of their animals. They can't sell them because the market is completely dead. Then you want to throw them in jail.

Good luck with that.

[LeftyMom]

250. Animal cruelty is a felony in all fifty states.

[hack89]

313. Sounds like the perfect set up for a black market

sell your horse to the guy with the horse trailer and cash and your problem goes away.

[jberryhill]

343. So fine people who don't have money, or just lock them up

Either way, it does nothing for horses

[csziggy]

235. Basically there is no way to make any slaughter humane

So why are we not banning ALL slaughter, raising any animals for slaughter, and prohibiting exporting all animals for slaughter? If we did that, what would happen to all those animals? The farmers would not be able to afford to keep them. Even if the ban were phased in, what would happen to old dairy cows and their male offspring not needed for breeding? Farmers currently send the cows to slaughter to recoup some of their expenses.

It's the way the world is right now. Good luck changing it. A step in the right direction is to make slaughter of all species as humane as possible.

[LeftyMom]

237. Barking up the wrong tree with that one.

[shanti]

217. WTF??

he's legalized the killing and consumption of horses for food, yet cannabis remains illegal? we are truly in bizarro world!

[NYC Liberal]

247. You can really only be outraged if you oppose the eating of ANY meat.

Otherwise, it's ridiculous to say you support slaughtering cows or pigs, but not horses.

[riderinthestorm]

248. [phone] nt

[EFerrari]

252. There are all kinds of categories of animals and human relationships with them.

Like this:

Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals

http://www.booktv.org/Program/11837/Some+We+Love+Some+We+Hate+Some+We+Eat+Why+Its+So+Hard+to+Think+Straight+About+Animals.aspx

Dogs, cats and horses are my companions. I could no more eat them than I could eat a person.

[NYC Liberal]

257. Maybe you couldn't. But others could.

Lots of people keep fish as pets.

There is absolutely no reason why cows and pigs are okay to kill but not horses.

[EFerrari]

261. Horses have been companion animals for millenia and that has

nothing to do with me.

If you don't understand that, and if you reject out of hand the information I offer you, we're pretty much through here.

[NYC Liberal]

265. So have many other animals that are regularly eaten for meat.

Horses are not unique in that regard.

[EFerrari]

345. Really? So what other companion animals are industrially slaughtered

for food in the United States?

[Major Nikon]

266. They were also eaten throughout the same period

Horses have been eaten by people, pretty much as long as there have been horses and people.

Mongol tribes learn how to ride horses almost before they can walk, use them for milk, and slaughter them for food. Some Asians keep dogs for companions and also eat dog meat.

[EFerrari]

344. Very true. But not here in our culture.

I once read that some indigenous people bled their horses when they were unable to get food and they were away from camp. And that is still not slaughter.

My point was that these relationships can't be described easily or shallowly because they are various.

[Major Nikon]

368. I'm not so sure

In western culture, there's plenty of examples of western cultures eating horse meat. The Romans ate it for a millennium. In France and Belguim, you can easily find it at the market. It's pretty hard to nail down a specific culture in the US because we are multicultural, and some of that diversity has no compunction about eating horse meat. The Native Americans ate the American horse to extinction and once westerners came and reintroduced horses to the continent they ate them again.

[EFerrari]

371. A good thought experiment would be to go to Safeway

and note the representation of horses and the lack of horse meat in the meat section.

[Major Nikon]

392. Well that's probably because the slaughter of horses was banned

...and still is banned in many areas. There are no horse slaughterhouses currently in operation in the US due to various bans. There are many grocery stores around my area where you can find all sorts of exotic meats like beef tongue, testicles, ox tails, goat, and many others. Horse meat was plentiful in US markets during WWII and for years after. If it's made available again, I'm sure there will be people who will eat it, but most likely most of it will get shipped to Europe.

[Name removed]

254. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tx4obama]

256. Has anyone actually took the time to read what the bill actually says?

The bill is here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2112rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr2112rh.pdf

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2112:

[Skittles]

259. that's why I didn't comment

couldn't bring myself to read it

anyone tell us the gist of the bill?

[struggle4progress]

300. "The following sums in this Act are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise

appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012"

There follow 150+ pages of exciting stuff like this:

... OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS
For necessary expenses of the Office of Tribal Relations, $448,000, to support communication and consultation activities with Federally Recognized Tribes, as well as other requirements established by law.
EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Economist, $11,177,000.
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division, $12,841,000.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, $8,946,000.
OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY COORDINATION
For necessary expenses of the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination, $1,321,000 ...

As far as I can guess, by reading this thread, several such supplemental appropriations bills since 2006 have provided a one-year ban on horse slaughter (for the year covered by the bill) but Congress this year did not include such ban language in this bill. Since there does not seem to be an existing statutory ban on horse slaughter, the bill does not "overturn" any ban on horse slaughter: it is simply silent on the subject. This bill, of course, is not the most natural place to enact a ban on horse slaughter, nor does the failure of this bill to include another one-year ban on horse slaughter prevent Congress from enacting such a ban elsewhere, if Americans want such a ban. Some people, however, are inexplicably reading this legislative history as proof that President Obama is now ghoulishly grinning at the thought of the WalMart meat section selling burgers made from beautiful little ponies

[TBF]

277. It's an appropriations bill I believe - that is why 30 repubs voted against

they don't want to spend money on anything.

I believe the gist of it is that they are funding inspections (which was cut off in 2006 and effectively closed slaughter houses because you can't sell food if it can't be inspected) and that funding is approved through sometime in 2012.

In the meantime there will be court challenges on the horse slaughter house portion of it - this may never get off the ground. But there are definitely pro-slaughter groups who are working on this and will profit.

[treestar]

316. Now that is too much to ask!

We can just trust the OP headline, can't we? I mean we don't have time for things like actually reading the bill! :sarcasm:

[Blasphemer]

262. I love animals but I eat meat....

So, while I think that we eat too much meat (far more than necessary and cattle consumption is especially problematic), I don't think that (religious beliefs aside) any animal is any more sacred than another. Cultural traditions dictate what we eat and don't eat. My only problem with slaughtering horses for food is that I don't trust the meat industry in the good 'ol U.S. of A. I think we can raise process meat humanely and safely and in an amount that fulfills our needs but no more. However, the reality is far more grim.

[JVS]

267. I'm ok with this.

[piratefish08]

269. i've been served horse in Switzerland. the meat came from Canada....

:shrug:

didn't like the taste, but i wasn't 'offended' in any way.

it's a big world - they ain't all us.

[TBF]

278. Yes, this is an emotional one for me for sure -

grew up with horses and love them like dogs. But I hear what you're saying.

[madokie]

271. Go talk to the French about horse meat

or us old vets who ate what I suspect to have been horse meat in our c-rations. I really don't see the difference between eating a cow or a horse.

[SidDithers]

274. Everyone in this post complaining about this bill should immediately adopt 2 unwanted horses...nt

Sid

[TBF]

279. Well that is likely to happen at some point -

my daughter is really into horses as I was ... and there is no way I will pay thousands for them now that I know they are slaughtering "excess" ones.

[Vattel]

282. Ad hominem.

[dionysus]

283. .

:rofl:

[Name removed]

338. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

347. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Scribe]

280. Not sure if I'm more grossed out by the concept or some of the replies.

I don't think I'd trust some of you "it's just meat" posters on a camping trip if we ran out of smores. Keep in mind I'm fat and would take too long to cook.

[NeedleCast]

284. Fine With Me

Horses aren't on the endangered species list, so I have no problem with them being consumed as meat animals. Don't think I've ever eaten horse meat, and I have no idea what it tastes like but if people want to eat it, doesn't bother me. I'm sure there will be a lot of outrage from the "cow, chicken and pig" only crowd who get sqeemish if their meat doesn't come from traditional sources.

[hobbit709]

290. Horses were eaten long before people learned to ride them.

If you really want to get down to it, horses are an invasive species in the New World.

[Abin Sur]

295. Actually, there were lots of horses in the New World before humans got here.

Then we showed up around 15000 BCE or so and ate all of them, which just goes to show they must have been pretty tasty.

[Name removed]

291. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[octothorpe]

292. Before it was banned, wasn't most the horse meat from the US meant for export?

I recall reading something about that somewhat recently.

[watercolors]

294. Horse meat is excellant, during WW2 it was all we could get,

I see no reason not to restrict it. Liked it tastier than beef.

[NYC_SKP]

296. .

delete, wrong place.

[NYC_SKP]

297. How Did Bernie Sanders Vote? Bernie Sanders voted AGAINST this bill, right??? Doh, Never Mind...

...

It would seem that he along with every other Democrat supported it.

And it looks like 30 Republicans were against it.

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/208

Bernard Sanders, Aye.

Shall we toss him under our righteous bus, too?


:patriot:

[TBF]

299. See above - I replied to another of your posts.

It's an appropriations bill - of course the republicans voted "no" because they that's what they do - obstruct

I'm still disgusted this got into the bill but I also understand how capitalism works ...

[struggle4progress]

304. What you're actually upset about is not that "this got into the bill" since there's nothing

in the bill about horse slaughter: what you're actually upset about is that "this didn't get into the bill"

Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away

When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn’t see him there at all!

- Antigonish (Hughes Mearns 1899)

[TBF]

317. Well I'm obviously not going to fight with mods -

I've set out my position in many posts and if you choose to ignore that there is really nothing I can say.

You chose poetry, I will choose song to make my point -

http://youtu.be/mwFN9f8q5g0

I am on the side of the workers, the poor, the environment and all of it's creatures - I am against capitalism and the status quo of profits before all else. Which side are you on?

[struggle4progress]

320. I'm not posting in any official status but simply as someone who wants to get the facts right

Upthread, you write "I'm still disgusted this got into the bill"

Well, if you express disgust that something "got into the bill," perhaps you could point us to the actual language in the bill that disgusts you?

Upthread, I have provided the only language, that I can find in H.R.2112 mentioning "horses" or "slaughter"

I've also told you how to get the bill text yourself

Can you help me understand what you are talking about? Can you point out for me just what in the bill disgusts you? Can you quote from the bill text the exact sentence(s) or paragraph(s) that spawn all this disgust and outrage?

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful reply, which I eagerly await

[TBF]

323. I've repeated ad naseum that it is an appropriations bill -

since 2006 there has been a section of the Agriculture appropriations bill that de-funds (to wit, bars the expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars on) a program for the USDA to inspect foreign-owned horse plants. That defunding provision has been deleted in this bill, so that USDA is free once again to inspect. So, you are asking me to supply the quote that has been deleted? Seriously?

Supporters of the inhumane process of horse slaughter will go back to lobbying Congress for millions of dollars annually to run the inspection program. Without inspection, it is illegal to transport horsemeat across state lines. Once they succeed, horse slaughter will resume here.

If that is not good enough for you I don't know what will be. As I asked you in the last post, which side are you on "struggle4progress" in your "official status"? Which side are you on period? Never mind, that is a rhetorical question because we all know the answer.

[struggle4progress]

328. So when you say "Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter" what you actually mean is that Congress

sent Obama a 150+ page supplemental appropriations bill that didn't include temporary slaughter-ban language that you (looking back later) feel strongly should have been included?

I would find such an analysis perplexing. Unless the Constitution has been recently amended whilst I was unaware, Congress is branch of government, separate from and coequal to the Executive, and Congress (rather than the President) writes the bills; moreover, the budgetary bills all arise on the House side and then move through various committees in the two Chambers, usually until both have passed versions which require reconciliation, after which the chambers both try to pass the reconciled version to send to the President for a single thumbs up or thumbs down on the entire package

How does the fact, that Obama signed a supplemental appropriations bill (sent to him by Congess and not including some temporary ban language that you feel strongly should have been included) become "Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter"?

[TBF]

336. There was a president once named Harry Truman, you might remember him,

happened to be a democrat back when that meant something ... who coined the phrase "the buck stops here". POTUS still has veto power as far as I know. If you don't like the title perhaps you should write your own OP.

:shrug:

[Ignis]

357. Did the OP write the linked article?

If not, you might direct your complaints regarding the choice of words in the title to...oh, I don't know, perhaps the actual author?

http://technorati.com/people/spcalapresident/

She just happens to be the president of the Los Angeles chapter of that horrible organization, the SPCA, which is certainly known for its breathless histrionics over the slightest form of animal abuse.

:eyes:

[treestar]

311. If this doesn't end his non-campaign for the Presidency,

what will!

[JoePhilly]

366. Meanwhile .... over at Fox news, the headline .... Obama eats horses!!!!!

:rofl:

[treestar]

314. There goes the PCness of the saying

"I'm so hungry I could eat a horse."

Nice to add the photo of the pretty horses.

[awoke_in_2003]

321. all the silly romantic notion aside...

the only difference between a cow and a horse is that a horse is dumber.

on edit: I unrecced because this is silly. Unless you are opposed to the slaughter of any animal, I don't want to hear crying for one of the dumbest animals on the planet. If you are doing this on vegan principles (which I don't share but will respect) than I apologize for my unrec.

[TBF]

324. Posted about it because I love horses -

they were pets for me growing up - much like cats and dogs are to others. I just happened to have a grandfather who raised horses.

I eat very little red meat, and likely even less now. But I respect the view that any slaughter should be questioned. No worries on the unrec - you are allowed to have your opinion just like everyone else.

[awoke_in_2003]

358. I probably shouldn't have unrecced...

I was feeling a bit of an ass at the time, I guess. My apologies.

[newspeak]

333. I have a problem with how we slaughter animals

there are slaughter houses that are not humane. I had a friend that worked at a slaughterhouse, he told me if I saw how and what they did, I wouldn't be eating beef, It's like an assembly line--could be any piece of plastic shite, but it's not. It's a living thing being processed. When we lived in a small town, we bought from local ranchers. My friend also bought from local ranches and would ask the rancher if it was quick kill. Of course, she believed that the meat changed when a cow is having that adrenaline pumping from fear.

I know they eat horse in europe and in asia. I consider a horse like my pet dog. It wouldn't be for me, but again, people eat all kinds of things. More interested in how we treat animals for food--how humane are we? It's not like we go out into the forest and hunt an animal that is wild and free.

[awoke_in_2003]

359. I hear you on the slaughter thing...

as an occasional hunter (usually dove)I think if you must kill your food, do it quick.

[EFerrari]

346. Calling relationships you don't share or understand romantic and silly

says much more about you than about the "dumb" animals you are attempting to describe.

[awoke_in_2003]

360. Well, I could understand if the question was...

"can I kill YOUR pet horse to eat it". Of course I could see how one would get upset about it. But if these are raised for the slaughter, just like cows are, then (in my opinion) giving more credence to the horse than the cow just isn't right. I like dogs, and plenty of cultures eat these, too.

[and-justice-for-all]

331. It appears some people will not be happy until EVERYTHING

is consumed and destroyed.

I find horse slaughter revolting.

[shockra]

341. This feels like a love note to Bloomberg, their favorite OCCUPY quasher.

Things have been heating up lately against the NYC Carriage Horse industry because of horses dropping dead in the streets. Last month Bloomberg stated "they're lucky to have a job." And that they "probably wouldn't be alive if they didn't have a job." This will help quell the pesky argument that most of these horses end up being sent to slaughter on the down low after they're used up. Now it can all be out in the open. Legal and stuff. Oh, joy.

[Erose999]

342. All of the Horse meat will go to Canada and Mexico. Americans won't buy horse meat for their own

consumption unless its rebranded and sold as something else. Or unless its used as a filler in a sausage product or something processed like a McRib or a McNugget.

Now petfood is a whole 'nother story. Most canned petfoods are horsemeat, and the petfood plants probably don't have the same inspection standards as the plants processing for human consumption.

[greiner3]

349. Good thing;

We don't live in India. Imagine the pain and hate on this board against the slaughter of cows.

[SidDithers]

351. Roast slice of horse with aromatic fresh herb butter

Mmmmm, looks yummy.

Sid

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

352. I support this - more freedom & fewer bans.

I don't understand why one animal gets preferrential treatment over another.
Animals are animals and people eat them. Eating horses is common in other countries.

To me, all this means is that there will be less restriction for Americans. So I support it.
Not that I'm an anarchist... but this ban provided little/no actual social benefit.
Personally, I'm for any removal of bans that offer minimal benefit in return for limiting freedom.

[TBF]

353. You don't sound like an anarchist at all - more like a libertarian.

But there are many of you on here now, I've learned to accept it. At least you're honest.

[jmowreader]

354. The alternatives are worse

I am going to mention an idea I have that will probably put me on half the Ignore lists we have, but what the hell.

First, we know Americans don't eat horse--all the horsemeat that is prepared in the US goes to French-speaking countries or Japan.

Second, when horse slaughter was outlawed in the US it didn't stop the slaughter of US horses--instead, they put the horses in cattle trucks and haul them to Mexico, where slaughtering horses is just hunky-dory.

Third, the biggest problems with horse slaughter from an animal welfare perspective are the transport and the kill procedure, which generally uses a modified framing nailer.

And finally, the alternative in many cases is to humanely euthanize the horse with barbiturates, which causes problems of its own--the horse carcass has to be cremated because burying it raises the possibility of killing many carnivores and predators who might dig up the horse, because the amount of drugs it takes to kill a horse is enough to kill a lot of dogs, cats and coyotes.

So how about this: allow horse slaughter if the horse leaves the farm in a dead condition. There are "mobile slaughtering operations" that come to your farm, kill the animal, take it back to the plant and cut it up there. There is no reason why these operations can't come out, kill your horse and take it to a place where the carcass can be frozen and shipped to somewhere horses are eaten. The ideal killing tool is this special horse euthanasia gun used in Europe, The guy would come out, put up a screen around his trailer, take the horse behind it, shoot it in the head and haul it off. The other horses wouldn't even have to see it, and if the gun was silenced they probably wouldn't hear it either.

[msanthrope]

367. You are describing the knacker van. It may make a comeback. nt

[jmowreader]

387. Knackers haul live animals to knacker yards

Or, in American parlance, "the glue factory."

This is what I was thinking of:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009636109_slaughterhouse11m.html

[msanthrope]

391. They take the dead ones, too. nt

[noamnety]

361. In the fine print of the bill

horse meat is defined as a vegetable if served in school lunch rooms.

[TBF]

362. Oh dear, please don't give them new ideas! nt

[sibelian]

374. Good thing too

living things should be eaten.

[WinkyDink]

383. This makes me sad. Why did Obama think this was needed?

[fascisthunter]

388. spin mo'fos, spin!

or should I say, dance!!! Yes you will or did.