Slaughter of Horses Goes On, Just Not in U.S.

[hack89]

Source: NY Times

LINCOLN, Neb. — The closing of the country’s last meat processing plant that slaughtered horses for human consumption was hailed as a victory for equine welfare. But five years later just as many American horses are destined for dinner plates to satisfy the still robust appetites for their meat in Europe and Asia.

Now they are carved into tartare de cheval or basashi sashimi in Mexico and Canada.

That shift is one of the many unintended consequences of a de facto federal ban on horse slaughter, according to a recent federal government study. As the domestic market for unwanted horses shrinks, more are being neglected and abandoned, and roughly the same number — nearly 140,000 a year — are being killed after a sometimes grueling journey across the border.

But there is an enduring chasm in how horses are viewed. “A horse, to me, is a livestock animal like a cow, sheep or a goat,” said Orbie Bonnett, a Nebraska rancher who stopped selling horses after prices plummeted. “A lot of folks nowadays look at a horse like a pet, like a dog or a cat. When you have a lot of money folk looking at this that way, well, there goes your slaughterhouses, there goes your market and there goes your horse folk — they just can’t make it anymore.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/us/Horse-Slaughter-Stopped-in-United-States-Moves-Across-Borders.html?_r=1

[AngryAmish]

1. Boy. What a surprise.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. How so? The US is one of the few nations where horse is not eaten

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Horse is eaten in the US.

In fact, during WWII, it was an alternative to beef for the war effort.

It's just not eaten very much, because a lot of people view horses as pets instead of livestock.

[AngryAmish]

4. It was sarcastic.

[bloomington-lib]

5. In Northern Italy it's pretty popular. Pretty tasty too.

[riderinthestorm]

6. Sigh, hate to say it but this isn't a surprise. Many of us "in the biz" predicted this.

There needs to be humane care for horses from beginning to end, and that means that humane slaughterhouses must be a part of the equation. All's we've done is ensure that so many horses suffer unnecessarily by banning horse slaughter in the US. They WILL be sold at auction regardless of how any of us feels about it but now we've forced them into incredibly suffering by either being abandoned first where they suffer from malnutrition or worse (before being taken to auction and then the slaughterhouse), and/or they skip the abandonment part but are still subjected to the most hideous transport - thousands of miles of terrific suffering (before they get to the slaughterhouse). It's part of the process so why not make this as tightly regulated and humane as we can.

[Fruittree]

8. I'm curious...

Why is it "part of the process"?

[riderinthestorm]

12. Part of owning a pet or keeping livestock. Making life + death decisions on the animals in your care

That "process".

I believe large livestock deserve to have as much care put into their final days as we do for small animals. Large livestock disposal though is tricky and difficult. They are difficult to cremate in large numbers (bad for the environment too). They usually ingest drugs that aren't healthy for human consumption so the usage of the animal post-mortem is a consideration. Transport is much more of a production than putting your car or dog into the backseat of your car.

So there are a lot of things to consider and anyone who stewards large livestock needs to have humane ways to dispose of the animals in their care. Simply putting a 1200 lb horse down isn't the same as a 25 lb terrier. You need a backhoe to bury it in your backyard if you want to keep your beloved pet at home. Or you pay top dollar to the rendering truck to come pick it up. Most people don't burn their livestock - the stench is horrendous and you never do get it fully rendered down thus drawing in varmints and other undesirables....

Having a humane slaughterhouse would go a long way to providing a decent end for many horse owners in my experience.

[shireen]

20. +1 nt

[kestrel91316]

7. Horses are livestock around the world. Only in the US does one see

them elevated to sacred status and used as pets only.

And yet people here laugh and think the Hindus are weird.

[Fruittree]

9. So by your comment -

You believe we as humans should be the final judges of every other species worth and right to life...

[Muskypundit]

10. Based on their tastiness

and their population... yes

[Fruittree]

11. There's a lot of humans on this planet...

[Muskypundit]

13. You see humans.

Entrepreneurs like me see soylent green.

[Javaman]

34. Soylent Green is people! oh wait, we already knew that.

never mind. LOL

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Fruittree]

24. Where is the fact?

I have no idea what "animal rights flamebaiting" is and I believe all forums are open or do you suggest only people who agree with you should be allowed to post?

[kestrel91316]

16. Perhaps you could find a better paying gig criticizing coyotes for killing

rabbits, or whatever.

Humans are omnivores, biologically speaking. WE EAT MEAT as a species. I know, it's hard for some people to accept.

[Fruittree]

25. A bit defensive?

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. Not just the US. Anglo-Saxon countries generally.

Horse isn't eaten in the UK either. Or Australia, or New Zealand, or Anglophone Canada. It's a cultural difference with origins in Britain.

[Xithras]

14. One of my neighbors shot his horse earlier this summer.

The horse was old and never fully recovered from a broken leg, and he needed to get rid of it. A few years ago, he would have called a broker, who would have taken the horse away to be slaughtered. Nowadays, that's not an option. Horses that cannot be ridden or perform work have so little value that you can't even give them away for free.

His property still has an old concrete water tank along its rear edge. He led the horse back to the tank, pulled out his shotgun, and put two slugs into the side of its head. A bunch of firewood, about 20 gallons of diesel fuel, and a bit of patience eliminated the carcass.

I fail to see how the "new" system is any better for the horses.

[Psephos]

18. Naturally.

Those who put this ban into place weren't thinking about the horses as much they were thinking about their own feelings. Once they get their feel-good buzz from passing some edict or law or whatever, the unintended but predictable consequences disappear from their radar.

That happens a lot.

[sybylla]

19. Agreed.

I attended a horse sale a year ago and the buyer with the most money in his pocket was buying for a foreign meat processor. They buy the horses no one wants, ship them all the way across country and load them on to "butcher" ships to be processed into meat as they cross the ocean.

It hasn't stopped the processing of horse meat. It's made the end of life for these animals far worse than it had to be.

[Scout]

22. the BAN is not what makes the end of life for the animals far worse....

it is the human GREED that makes it worse. there are other solutions besides slaughter, whether done in this country or others. also, horse meat is not safe for human consumption unless they existed only in the wild. many drugs given to horses are not safe for consumption by humans.

duh.

[Fruittree]

26. Agreed - I can't believe some of the comments on this

post..The total lack of compassion is sickening.

[Psephos]

27. What actually makes things worse for animals is thinking that a ban addresses greed.

The disconnect always amazes me.

Greed is resilient and resourceful. Passing a feel-good ban is worse than no ban if it causes thoughtful people to take their eyes off the ball and say to themselves, "that's now fixed." It's not. As the OP shows, the actual result is worse than before. How ironic that those who think they helped ended up causing more misery, not less.

I'm interested in solutions that work in the real world. Recognition of human nature, the natural role of livestock, and well-tested principles of humane husbandry are indispensable to such solutions.

[riderinthestorm]

28. +10000. I have 40 horses at my place.

I operate a high end sport horse training facility but many of the horses we "rescue", and re-train for a new career, come from the track. I've seen what ugly is, and where the unwanted horses go, and how they are treated. Real world solutions include humane disposal of large livestock.

And I'm at the "high end"... I weep at what happens at the "low end".

[Scout]

35. i don't know anyone who thought the ban was the only "fix" required...

and i don't know anyone who "took their eyes off the ball" once the ban was passed. there are still many people working to improve the conditions of horses, and to outlaw the export of horses for slaughter.

sure, let's just give in to the basest, greediest, cruelest treatment and behavior cuz, hey! it's human nature!

perhaps if these people would have bothered to police themselves/their industry, then the public would not have called for a ban, hmmmm?

i don't believe that thoughtful people can't come up with a solution other than "kill them" and oh by the way treat them really, really bad before and during the process.

[Psephos]

38. Bigger strawman than in the Wizard of Oz.

"i don't know anyone who thought the ban was the only "fix" required..."

No one said it was. Where did that come from?

"and i don't know anyone who "took their eyes off the ball" once the ban was passed. there are still many people working to improve the conditions of horses, and to outlaw the export of horses for slaughter."

This issue involves more people than your sphere of friends. Meanwhile, the discussion here has not questioned whether there are still many people trying to improve the lot of the horses. To the contrary.

"perhaps if these people would have bothered to police themselves/their industry, then the public would not have called for a ban, hmmmm?"

Right back to treating human nature as one wishes it to be, rather than how it is. That's a fundamental cause of solutions that don't work, or even make things worse, as in this case. So this is really about being able to wag your finger? I'd rather see something done that helps the animals.

"i don't believe that thoughtful people can't come up with a solution other than "kill them" and oh by the way treat them really, really bad before and during the process."

And why would anyone believe that a better solution can't be found than this myopic ban, which did nothing but shove the problem across borders where the animals fare worse than before? People who are actually thoughtful would think through the consequences of their dicta and regulations before enacting them.

Re-read some of the posts by people who work with horses. There are better solutions than this one, which has back-fired to no one's benefit.

[riderinthestorm]

29. Brutally honest here (don't read further if you are squeamish)

By the time a horse reaches the killer pens, they don't have any drugs in their system anymore. They've either been abandoned for so long, or at the auction site for long enough. Add even more time for the hideous long transport (typically in rigs designed for pigs - yes that's right, pigs. Cram a 1200 lb animal into a space designed for a smaller animal and you get my drift on their transport condition) and by the time they reach their foreign destination there isn't a trace of drugs left in their system.

Perfect for human consumption.

Sorry but my impatience stems from a hideous episode rescuing draft colts in IL (here's just one article about it: http://www.regardinghorses.com/2007/10/31/accident-brings-horse-slaughter-issue-to-forefront/).

These were perfectly healthy draft colts on their way to Canada for slaughter. Rescuing them was a nightmare. They were in a double decker transport designed to haul pigs when they were struck. The 59 horses on that wreck suffered hideously.

I live in Northern IL and the fight to close the Cavel plant was a hell of a lot more nuanced for those of us on the front lines (as it were since the plant was less than 30 min from my farm). The ban is almost entirely what has made it worse for horses in the US.

[yellowcanine]

37. "there are other solutions besides slaughter" Such as?

As for wild horses, part of the solution to too many wild horses over grazing range land was rounding them up for slaughter. There are not enough people willing and able to adopt these horses, so what is your solution?

[Kali]

21. correct

[yellowcanine]

23. I honestly don't think the case can be made that it is ok to eat a cow but not a horse.

If someone is ethically opposed to eating meat, ok, I can respect that. But just because we in the U.S. tend to anthropomorphize horses doesn't mean that it is somehow worse to eat a horse than a cow.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. yup. nt

[Duer 157099]

33. And what about a dog, or a cat?

Many people would never eat a dog or cat because they consider them pets. Same applies to horses, for some people.

It's not anthropomorphizing.

[yellowcanine]

36. That's fine. Don't eat the horse you consider a pet. But don't impose your choice on someone else.

People make pets out of chickens and pigs also. That doesn't make it wrong for other people to eat them. And yes, "considering them pets" is anthropomorphizing.

[Odin2005]

31. No duh. Some people, like, eat horsemeat, ya know.

[Ter]

32. Why is one race worth more than another?

The same people who view horse slaughter as horrid have no problem with cows or lamb being eaten. One life isn't worth more than another, either be for eating both or against eating both.

[and-justice-for-all]

39. sad and revolting...nt