I know cattle board, but a slaughter horse issue

Help Support CattleToday:

My horses don't earn their keep. But, they do make checking fences and working stock easier. They don't work nearly as hard as their ancestors did, though. Probably for the best. Horses, like people, aren't built for as much hard work as our ancestors. My ancestors were pioneers and when I think about all they accomplished in a day, even my long days stretching fences pales by comparison. Afterall, someone else makes the fencing material! ;-)
 
alftn":1kyy73wi said:
...No one that I know use horse to work stock, just for pleasure....

I know some. They work cow calf operations and play in the corral with ropers too.
 
Texas Gal":mptr1yi6 said:
I say let all the celebrity supporters, i.e. Willie, Merle, etc, put their money where their mouth is and support the unwanted, homeless horses and ponies.

I really like that way of thinking...Seems a music person or a celebrity speaks now days and the loyal followers would jump a bridge with them.

Lots of Horses are treated inhumanely around here. You've got people that can't feed themselves, trying to keep up livestock.Nothing worse than a whiny Horse person complaining that they can't get a buck out of a Horse, that market has been in the wash for years around this part of the Country.I have offers constantly with calls and visits from folks wanting to give Horses away. Two Boys just made the front page of our paper here a couple weeks ago for starving Horses to death or near death. Better get used to reading a lot more about these type cases.
 
Crowderfarms":q26nyzx5 said:
Two Boys just made the front page of our paper here a couple weeks ago for starving Horses to death or near death. Better get used to reading a lot more about these type cases.

Horses will always make the news before cows in this case.

Bet less horses die as a percentage from poor handling than cattle based on a post you posted earlier.

Neither should be acceptable.
 
Lammie":26m874w5 said:
I thought the reason the slaughter houses closed is because of complaints from the neighborhoods that have sprung up in the areas about the smell. I didn't think it had anything to do with animal rights per se.

No one wants a horse slaughtering house in their back yard and no one thinks it is humane to slaughter such a beloved creature to begin with.

I hear that zoos are having a hard time now because the meat they feed their big cats is horse meat. They can't get it now. Be thankful that no one in the 'burbs has decided that cattle are fluffy and cute.

Check this article out - http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2007/01/058.shtml
 
Just so you know who is rebuking the Kentucky story. The facts behind the HSUS.Z

And before you make your decision, please know who Humane Society of the United States is......(not taking a stand, just making sure y'all know who is "rebuking" this story that was on AOL and Yahoo and the United Press)

Despite the words "humane society" on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it's not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.

HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a "humane society" in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn't operate a single one anywhere.

Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.

HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: "We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we're] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers." More recently, in a June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working on "a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it." A strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: "Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals."

Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an inside-the-movement watchdog newspaper) that his goal was to build "a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement." And now, as the organization's leader, he's in a position to back up his rhetoric with action. In 2005 Pacelle announced the formation of a new "Animal Protection Litigation Section" within HSUS, dedicated to "the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court."

HSUS's current goals have little to do with animal shelters. The group has taken aim at the traditional morning meal of bacon and eggs with a tasteless "Breakfast of Cruelty" campaign. Its newspaper op-eds demand that consumers "help make this a more humane world [by] reducing our consumption of meat and egg products." Since its inception, HSUS has tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping.

A True Multinational Corporation

HSUS is a multinational conglomerate with ten regional offices in the United States and a special Hollywood Office that promotes and monitors the media's coverage of animal-rights issues. It includes a huge web of organizations, affiliates, and subsidiaries. Some are nonprofit, tax-exempt "charities," while others are for-profit taxable corporations, which don't have to divulge anything about their financial dealings.

This unusually complex structure means that HSUS can hide expenses where the public would never think to look. For instance, one HSUS-affiliated organization called the HSUS Wildlife Land Trust collected $21.1 million between 1998 and 2003. During the same period, it spent $15.7 million on fundraising expenses, most of which directly benefited HSUS. This arrangement allowed HSUS to bury millions in direct-mail and other fundraising costs in its affiliate's budget, giving the public (and charity watchdog groups) the false impression that its own fundraising costs were relatively low.

Until 1995 HSUS also controlled the Humane Society of Canada (HSC), which Irwin had founded four years earlier. But Irwin, who claimed to live in Canada when he set up HSC, turned out to be ineligible to run a Canadian charity (He actually lived in Maryland). Irwin's Canadian passport was ultimately revoked and he was replaced as HSC's executive director.

The new leader later hauled HSUS into court to answer charges that Irwin had transferred over $1 million to HSUS from the Canadian group. HSUS claimed it was to pay for HSC's fundraising, but didn't provide the group with the required documentation to back up the expenses. In January 1997 a Canadian judge ordered HSUS to return the money, writing: "I cannot imagine a more glaring conflict of interest or a more egregious breach of fiduciary duty. It demonstrates an overweening arrogance of a type seldom seen."

From Animal Welfare to Animal Rights

There is an enormous difference between animal "welfare" organizations, which work for the humane treatment of animals, and animal "rights" organizations, which aim to completely end the use and ownership of animals. The former have been around for centuries; the latter emerged in the 1980s, with the rise of the radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

The Humane Society of the United States began as an animal welfare organization. Originally called the National Humane Society, it was established in 1954 as a spin-off of the American Humane Association (AHA). Its founders wanted a slightly more radical group -- the AHA did not oppose sport hunting or the use of shelter animals for biomedical research.

In 1980, HSUS officially began to change its focus from animal welfare to animal rights. After a vote was taken at the group's San Francisco national conference, it was formally resolved that HSUS would "pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture."

When John Hoyt took over its presidency in 1970, the Humane Society of the United States had 30,000 members and an annual budget of about $500,000. By 1994, HSUS's annual revenue had grown to $22 million. In 2003, that number jumped to $123 million, including nearly $3 million in investment income.

At the end of 2003, the nonprofit HSUS declared assets totaling over $113 million, including almost $16 million in cash and over $80 million invested in securities. It pays over $11.8 million in annual salaries, and another $3 million in employee benefits and pension contributions. When HSUS merged with the Fund For Animals in 2004, the group announced that its 2005 operating budget would be $95 million.

Raising money is Job One. HSUS will even adopt conflicting positions in order to satisfy individual patrons. Two HSUS donors once wrote to John Hoyt with very different views of the sinking of Icelandic whaling ships by Paul Watson's violent Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in the late 1980s. In one response, Hoyt agreed with the donor that Watson's actions were wrong, writing: "I am unequivocally opposed to any and all acts of violence in the pursuit of efforts to protect animals from abuse and suffering." In the other, he declared that Sea Shepherd's work was "indeed, a daring and masterful bit of James Bond on behalf of the great whales."
 
[/quote]

I thought the reason the slaughter houses closed is because of complaints from the neighborhoods that have sprung up in the areas about the smell. I didn't think it had anything to do with animal rights per se.

No one wants a horse slaughtering house in their back yard and no one thinks it is humane to slaughter such a beloved creature to begin with.

I hear that zoos are having a hard time now because the meat they feed their big cats is horse meat. They can't get it now. Be thankful that no one in the 'burbs has decided that cattle are fluffy and cute.[/quote]

When did horse get elevated from livestock to "companion animals"? It happens when people think of them as "beloved creatures'.

When horses change from livestock to companion animal status, it won't be long until the apprasial districts will drop the agricultural exemption on legitamate breeding farms and ranches and consider the land they run on just like pleasure horses - at its fair market value.
 
:eek: Around here, horses are companion animals like dogs and cats. Just go to the clinic--- the price for horse procedures
is very high-- "food" animal procedures are very fair. :shock:
THAT IS NOT RIGHT!!!!! MY best friend has bought some
good broke draft horses for $100 each!!! The neighbor
guy breeds them willy-nilly and has a dry lot full of them with
hardly enough hay for 2, let alone the 14 he has( he does
nothing with them! ) :mad: They are not even halter broke!
 
Lammie":2cyoyz3m said:
I thought the reason the slaughter houses closed is because of complaints from the neighborhoods that have sprung up in the areas about the smell. I didn't think it had anything to do with animal rights per se.

No one wants a horse slaughtering house in their back yard and no one thinks it is humane to slaughter such a beloved creature to begin with.

Why would you build your house next to a slaughterhouse? Sounds pretty idiotic to me. Kind of like building your house next to the garbage dump and then complaining about the smell, or next to the interstate then complaining about the traffic. I think a little common sense would be in order.

If they dont want a slaughterhouse in their backyard, maybe they shouldnt have put there back yard next to the slaughterhouse.

As far as "no one thinks it is humane to slaughter such a beloved creature to begin with" you are already incorrect. I think its humane, so saying "no one" would be wrong.

I think its ludacrist to prohibit the slaughter of horses. Whats next, we can no longer euthenize sick animals? A horse is livestock. Some people have pigs as pets, maybe we should outlaw bacon as well.
 
3MR":24ptr6z5 said:
Some people have pigs as pets, maybe we should outlaw bacon as well.

Thats what I find interesting and of concern.

The U.S. just legislated itself out of a world livestock commodity.

That group MillIron pointed out should be a concern to us all as well. I wonder how many of us or our friends or families donate to these people due to their fraudulent misrepresentation as to who they are.
 
I was at the vet yesterday talking to a guy about that very issue. He had no idea that the humane society of America wasnt the same people running the shelters. Of course in his defense, before reading the article and googling it myself I had no idea either. I am glad to know that as I always thought they were at odds with each other.
 
There is a HUGH difference between the American Humane Society and the Humane Society of the United States.
 
msscamp":2avdbdij said:
There is a HUGH difference between the American Humane Society and the Humane Society of the United States.

How can that be? They sound the same? And Im sure thats exaclty what they are banking on. :mad:
 
3MR":1zc63yl5 said:
msscamp":1zc63yl5 said:
There is a HUGH difference between the American Humane Society and the Humane Society of the United States.

How can that be? They sound the same? And Im sure thats exaclty what they are banking on. :mad:

Bingo! The thing I keep wondering is this - how many people are supporting the HSUS, thinking they are the same as the AHS - all the while not realizing that they are funding the demise of their lives, and lifestyle? How does one get the message out about that?
 
I really don't have any information on Beltex but I researched a story a couple of years ago on Dallas Crown. The City of Kaufman was trying to shut them down for a list of violations as long as your arm. One of the things I found out is that DC built the plant where it did because of the cheap price of land. It's next to a prdominately black low income neighborhood that had already been there for years.

Another thing people need to think about is what happens if horses classified as companion animals.

One thing high on the list is going to be the cost of feed.
Another is the cost of vet services. The drug companies will run up the prices equal or greater then the cost for drugs for dogs and cats.
And like someone has already pointed out the loss of Ag status for training and breeding farms.

HSUS=PETA=trouble.Z
 

Latest posts

Top