Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption

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

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.

:cry:

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

Carnivores are best avoided because of parasites.

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.

your western sensibilities on others.

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.

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.

Particularly the liver. It's bad for you.

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

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.)

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.

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

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

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

and the ones neglected and abandoned as it was?

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

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

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.

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

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?

"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!

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.

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.

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

:sarcasm:

Darn.

:(

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...

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

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.

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.

Never got around to trying the horse jerky, though.

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.

:argh:

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:

What did you do at that time?

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 ...

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.

the folks that passed this are MF's

Right?

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

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?

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.

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!

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.

and your "effort" is not appreciated.

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.

years ago?

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


:wtf:

...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.

:wtf:

what's wrong with you?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Do you have the figures on this?

I know what the economy is now.

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

not worth more to those who own horses.

But money money money Baby......

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?

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

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.

which in turn are starving.

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.

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.

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.

I find your assumption about my diet amusing.

So fucking sad

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

"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)

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.

"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?

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.

"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).

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).

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?

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.

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

The one in the OP looks to be incorrect.

(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

in this case they simply overturned a previous ban.

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!

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

:P

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!)

couple of ribs and you can eat yourself.

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

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

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

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".

:freak:

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).

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?

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.

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.

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?

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!

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?

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:

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.

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.

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

People eat horse in Europe all the time.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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 ...

...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.

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 ...

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.

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

It didn't work... :shrug:

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.

Horses are not native to this continent.

They're not even native to Europe.

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

Honestly, that's just stupid.

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.

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

right

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

It makes a lot more sense the emotional headline.

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

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.

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.

PB

*EGREGIOUS*

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

Obama 2012: A horse in every pot!

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.

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?

Which is what was happening.

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

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

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

Observe the starving horses on page 25.

is to eat them?

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.

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:

Horses are not people.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

"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.

Why else would this law have passed? :shrug:

Food for the 1% lol

:crazy:

Welcome to DU btw!!! :hi:

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

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?

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.

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

...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

30 Repugs voted against it.