Horse Meat Is On the Menu?

• No; American horse meat is not safe for human consumption.  Your remark that the end of horse slaughter would end the slaughter of all animals is specious. Conversely, given that 80% of Americans oppose horse slaughter, a good number of them will decide that the slaughter of all animals is bad.   Oops for the cattlemen's/farm lobbies...It's already happening.  The consumption of American beef is down.  If these organizations/lobbies had any kind of brain (dubious at best)--they would figure out that their support for horse slaughter is costing them big bucks.

• Paul Friswald, If you were a journalist--you'd research the facts about horse slaughter.  Clearly you didn't; and clearly you aren't.

• Well, please do that, Chevalier--with all of those carcinogens...

• To VeganWhiteKnights...FU!!:So many fallacies to dispel and so little time...Using logical fallacies much?  Just because something has always been done a certain way is no reason for it to continue to be done without change.  And just because the majority does something doesn't mean it's right or again that a certain thing should continue to be done because "everyone's doing it."  Heck, following that faulty reasoning, all the great cultural, social, political, artistic and scientific revolutions through the ages would never have occurred if man (and women) had wanted to maintain the status quo.   And you reference our omnivorous "ape corollaries (baboons and chimps)," who also enjoy an omnivore diet, but they also swing through the trees naked...should we do that too?"Did you know that cows, a natural herbivore, are exploited (like all meat animals, including horses, if horse slaughter would ever be allowed) and are forced to eat fishmeal, slaughterhouse waste, and other animal-sourced foods not because it is in the cows’ interests to do so, but because the meat industry ruthlessly exploits them and laces their food with drugs, chemicals, and antibiotics for their own interests, which causes cows to have dietary distress, cancerous tumors, and other problems." --From Dr. Will TuttleNow in the above paragraph, where you see "cow" put in "people," and if you have half a brain, you'll see it isn't just the cows, horses, pigs, or whatever animal, but also us that are pawns in the pharmaceutical/medical/insurance conglomerate complex that rakes in huge profits to treat our red-meat induced illnesses, such as heart disease, cancers, arthritis,autoimmune diseases, atherosclerosis, srokes, obesity, kidney disease, etc.  The conclusion being cows are no more "natural" omnivores than people, but are "forced" into it.  

• Oh, except for the logical reason that horses are not medicated as food animals.

• So, when are they going to implement the tracking system for horse medications then? As you may know, the EU has had to implement a a costly and complex horse passport system for ALL horses there, whether they are going to slaughter or not, to track the medications horses receive over their entire lifetime because these medications are cancerous to humans. The EU has had the passport system in place since 2004 and an accompanying microchip since 2009. The EU is finally realizing that the US has no system for tracking medications that US horses receive, making them ineligible to be imported as human food. This will be strictly enforced starting in 2013 -- something that the Canadian horse slaughterhouses are also worried about because over 50% of their slaughtered horses come from the US. If you want to slaughter US horses, then all 9 million US horses will need a passport of similar. Note: there is no acceptable withdrawal time for bute. If a horses ever receives even one does in it's life, it is ineligible in the eyes of the EU because of the toxic effects it has to humans. Also, according to our own food laws, it is absolutely illegal to be slaughtering horses as human food for the very same reason.

• Where to begin with the ill-informed 'article'? First of all, Sue Wallis is a Representative not a Senator. The folks in Missouri are certainly not 100 behind a horse slaughterhouse. In fact, like the rest of the country, I'd venture that they're 80%+ against it. If a 'boon to the community' means hazardous wastewater because of medications in horse's blood, then I guess yes that'll have that. Add in that slaughter horses need no coggins (spread of horse disease anyone?), horse theft increases, illegal alien workers (no one wants these jobs except them) and the stigma of the horse slaughter capital of the US. Nope. Not a good deal for MO or anywhere in the US.  

• WE DO NOT WANT A PLANT FOR SLAUGHTING HORSES IN MISSOURI! If you think these slaughters will be ethical is a joke. Go into any animal slaughter house and you will not eat it again. It is bloody, disgusting, and not needed. Do some research and you will find lots of rescue groups that can help people fing homes for unwanted horses. Maybe we can open a processing plant for other things we find inconvenent, such as local writers and other people that do NO RESEARCH AND HAVE NO IDEA about any aspect of the animal industry. Idiots.

• Awesome! I always wondered what Mr. Ed would taste like.

• That state of the art slaughter house in Canada was shut down for a time because of undercover investigation. They just re-opened, but they're now using a rife instead of a stun gun. Her design failed. 

• Because this isn't just about what you shove your gullet. This is about the impact a horse slaughter plant has to the community, and even to the state and country. Those who have had horse slaughter plants in their communities have spoken of the waste, the smell, the blood and the trucks coming and going. They've talked about how these plants take government investment money, but give little back in the way of paid taxes. They have gone into depth about the damage these plants have made on the infrastructure.  So a plant like this impacts on society.  If you want to own a horse and butcher it for your own consumption, you can. I do not believe there is a law against this. But don't try to make it seem that this plant has anything to do with "personal choice". 

• Of course I've presented solid rational for not having this plant.  They don't have the infrastructure to support the plant. It will end up being an ecological disaster. The number of horses they want to process is going to cause degradation in the quality of life for the surrounding communities. You can't have a horse slaughter plant that size that won't have adverse impact on the surrounding communities--noise, smell, traffic, not to mention the impact of having an enterprise that generates near universal disdain in this country.  The backers of the plant lie when they say they'll be using the homeless, unwanted horses. They plan on breeding horses specifically for meat.  This will cost taxpayers, and there will be little economic benefit--to the community, to the state, to the country. Let's not forget the controlling interest in this little enterprise is not a US based company. There has never been a humane horse slaughter plant. There is reams of evidence to the contrary--not to mention significant negative experience in towns that have had these plants. They certainly don't want them back, which should be telling. And what's your argument in return? In seems to boil down to "If HSUS and PETA don't want it, I do". That's not an argument--that's an expression of bias. 

• I agree but I think that's what many of the pro-slaughter posters are saying.  It's about choice.  Having one is what's important.  If you find the idea distasteful don't eat horse but there's nothing immoral about eating one.  It's very clear the anti-slaughter voices here are anti-choice.  I find the idea of someone dictating my diet very distasteful...pun intended:)

• It's funny to me that so many of the comments opposing horse slaughter are liked by the other posters opposing it.  And many of them seemed to appear at the same time too... Are these people so pathetic they need to come out in force and tell their nutso friends to strongarm a blog post from a small alternative paper?  Something tells me their ideas when spoken in public have fallen on deaf ears. Lame.  Really lame.

• What a sad attempt at fear-mongering...talk about despicable antics.

• I'll second that, well spoken Gayle.  What people choose to eat is a personal choice and a lot of these people on this board would love to shove their ideology down our throats.

•   peace  ;)

• So how will this help the starving people you say we have? It wont. Why would those slaughterhouse fat cats "give it to our poor" when they can sell it overseas as a delicacy for a lot of money? Answer is, they WON'T. Duh.

• Lol! WRONG! Please educate yourself.

• And I mean YOU as in the people who want slaughter--not YOU youself Crashtest. ;)

• Because even the FDA labels horses as COMPANION animals, just like dogs and cats. They are not livestock (i.e. food animals). I know you will probably come back with "well lots of people in other countries eat dog and cat so whats the difference?" Well, the difference is this: It used to be an American custom to have slaves. Does that make it right? No. In Africa they mutiliate a female childs genitals in order to make them not get pleasure from sex as married adults. Does that make it right? No, it sure doesn't. The last thing I want to be compared to is a nation of people who let a two year old child who was hit by a car lie in the road for over ten minutes, people walking all around her while she was bleeding and suffering, before finally a lady stopped to help that baby. If YOU want to compare yourself to people like that, be my guest. Matter of fact I'll help you buy a plane ticket to MOVE there.

• I'm of mixed feelings, on the surface, the thought of eating horse meat isn't all that appealing, especially when i think about the animal. On the other hand, what is a meat animal varies from country to country, even cats and dogs are sometimes eaten (asian countries in particular, not particularly meaty, but they reproduce at a ridiculous rate). Throw in the fact that people go hungry every night, and having more food available, especially if its cheap is hard to call a bad thing.

• Are you refusing to correct or respond to the unthical behavior of your champions busy behind closed doors.  Come on - you are an attorney - interesting. 

• Ummmm, I don't want slaughterhouses either, but how is butchering beef, pork and chicken any more ethical than butchering a horse? I'd suggest that anyone who eats meat must have to have an ID card showing they've worked for a day in a slaughterhouse. Clearly if people don't have the stomach to take the life of an animal, hang it upside down and bleed it, gut it, skin it, and cut it into pieces....then should they really be dining on seasoned and cooked parts of it in a restaurant with wine?

• Bunchgrassfarm, They change the argument because they don't have one.  Totally on your side on this along with an ever increasing number of people.  I'm an attorney and a nutritionist and I've had to fight these people tooth and nail for 20 years now and philosophically it's like talking to 9 year olds. I signed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Sea World in PETA's recent attempt to get the Orcas there classified as slaves and I can tell you the entire legal world, where decisions like this are made, are still laughing at HSUS and PETA.  Their arguments against horse slaughter are just as ludicrous and contrived. They're crazy simply put and don't have the logical ability to see where their extreme views on animal personhood will lead them, this country, and the world.  My advice is to stop arguing and get politically active to ensure that the people on this board and in those organizations do not get the authority to dictate what you can and cannot do with your animals.

• None of the objections you list above are surmountable.  Everything needed can be built and obviously the market is willing to support such a business if 1000s of horses are carted to Mexico for slaughter. You cannot and have not made any ethical argument whatsoever for not slaughtering horses.  Everyone has seen this and that is why people are moving ahead with it. Trying to make an economic/operations argument is pathetic...nothing that cannot be overcome with investment and process-control and EPA regulations already on the books.

• Americans do eat horses.  And they even used to feed them to cats and dogs <gasp!>.  Horses are not "pets".  Horses are working animals for the vast majority of those that own them.  We benefit from their labor.  We can benefit from their meat too.

• Hope you gag on your asparagus!!!!

• Actually, I'm grateful to Paul for bringing this subject up for discussion.  It's nice to see that you'd shut down articles and blog posts you disagree with just as ferociously as you force your lame animal personhood arguments down our throats.  Real open-minded of you.  Go fuck yourself please.

• Hope you choke on your horsemeat!!!!

• American's don't eat horses they are our pets just like dogs and cats are!!!  

• Missouri Meth Lab Seizures Hit New Record; State Leads Nation Again

• And we will be there with you in spirit and in person if need be. 

• Well, in this country = majority rules.

• What no response to the role of politicians snaring the will of the American people up with foreign investors and local enablers?  And yes, Sen. Blunt is from Missouri.  Could he have been in on the business plans this article opened with?  Isn't that collusion, corruption, and unAmerican? No one have an answer? 

• You must live in a tent, made out of plastic bags?  Are you sure those are your horses or are you borrowing from USDA or BLM?  You never bought a horse, or breeding?  Everything you do because you have horses puts money into the local economy.  I just cannot for the life of me figure why anyone as dense as you appear to be are even able to maintain a business.

• What does what you just said have anything to do with the argument I just made supporting the overwhelming wisdom that humans are omnivorous!?!  I’m so sorry that you don’t have anything to rebut that with, but telling me to leave the U.S. is not an argument.   "Reject the evolved values and morals of Americans."  You mean the 90% of Americans that eat meat!?!  From Wikipedia, “A 2008 Harris Interactive study of 5,050 respondents found that "approximately 0.5%, or 1 million [Americans] are vegans, who consume no animal products at all," while a significantly higher number, 3.2% of U.S. adults (7.3 million people) "follow a vegetarian-based diet" and 10% of U.S. adults, or 22.8 million people, "say they largely follow a vegetarian-inclined diet.”   What fucking country do you live in...cause I live in one where people have overwhelming voted with their feet for freedom of choice in their diet, a diet that includes red meat.  Taking that further the majority of the world’s population is wanting to eat more meat, not less with every passing year.  I and the vast majority of us want freedom in our dietary choices, so do you.  I’m not trying to shove a steak down your throat.  Stop trying to force a carrot down mine.

• Guest - you don't buy tack? You don't have trailers?  How about fencing?  Roads through your property?  Gates?  Clothes, boots, shovels, racks, hay racks, welded stall dividers?  Come on - add it up. 

• 80% of Americans oppose the slaughter of horses for food.  This is a democracy - your side despite your reliance on misprotrayal of the role of horses - loses.  Ask me what the percentage of Americans who wanted to outlaw slavery (back in the 1800's) was, despite claims of "personal property!"  Your argument about having rights over the will of the majority of society do not work in this country.  Our society works best when voices are heard and counted and when a majority is reached - that is the outcome.  Now because a very small minority of THREE politicians (bought and paid for by another minority of one maybe two or three foreign meat purveyors and openly backed by a equally small minority of Americans) took matters into their own hands, we are having a bit of chaos trying to control this threatening egregious policy of slaughtering horses.  There is no reason to slaughter horses except for the desire of a very precious few people who want to line their pockets with the blood money.  How can you justify transporting horses thousands of miles, slaughtering them in expensive factories, pay payroll, then fly the meat to overseas markets all over  the world?  Lots and lots of money.  What we are also fighting is the provision of LIVE FOALS to Oriental markets for sushi.  This is a terrible industry - fueled by people willing to turn their backs to the torture and disgusting habit of eating the animals we share this earth with in the most ruthless manner possible.  These arguments over having the right to dispose of your animals as you see fit are ridiculous.  You have a responsibility to society as a whole for the greater good - slaughtering animals who bond with and trust their human handlers is betrayal, not a good manner of disciplining oneself.  And if you look inside your hearts - all you wanting a place to sell your old, "not working out," stolen, misappropriated, "broke down in morning breeze," bred for, cloned and on and on - you will find the kind place that will tell you there are solutions that make everyone happy.  As to your simplistic argument that we slaughter other animals - maybe those practices should also be placed under more direct scrutiny.   

• Bunchgrass - I suppose 80% of Americans against wholesale slaughter of horses makes me narcisstic - why is that?

•  Perhaps if you so strongly espouse the life of the "bushman of the Kalahari," and reject the evolved values and morals of Americans, you are living in the wrong country? Just sayin'.

•  Your situation is extremely atypical, hence where the $1,500 to $4,000 per horse per year comes in (many states have done studies to create the numbers for their states). I am talking about the reality of how the vast majority of Americans care for their equine partners.

• That's what the pink juice is for dude. A humane death for an animal that has already suffered inexcusably at the hands of humans. 

•  AMEN!!! Good for you .... Gayle Lynn

•  Oh I see, well we shoe all of our own horses+ all ranch horses, we grow our own feed, I guess that maybe some meds and other stuffs that we buy would contribute to the local community/economy. Bo,y you spend ALOT of $$$$ on your horse. Hope you don't have to many horses.

• How does  "Live horses put $1,500 to $4,000 per year into their local economy." Tell me I woudl REALLY like to know ... and I own a few ... and they don't generate any $$$'s to the local economy.

•  BerkBound,  you have never been around an abused unruly un-trainable horse then have you?  Get out of fairytale land sometime and out into the wild and find out how some of them are ... even some of the wild ones are unmanageable or get folks that buy them that abuse them and then their minds get blown, nothin to fix after that sometimes. Then what keep a horse that would just as soon kill you or your child when you walk by the fence?  

•  Some folks in America ARE starving ... where have you been? You may not be starving but it is NOT about you. I just merely asked what you would do if you were starving. and for the record Horse meat/ chevel is more lean than beef and higher protein. I would not eat my horses. I love her. but if my family WAS starving... hell yes I would feed my family. Would you let your family starve if you were in that situation? What is more cruel? Letting a horse suffer with no foot care, no feed, no clean water, full of worms and parasites and so one when that person that owns the horse can not take care of them and no one else wants the animal .... would you take one on and sink a ton of money into the animal in these hard times? Or would you put it down? I prefer to put it out of his/her misery personally. That is NOT cruel to put him down... the listed above is cruel and so is dog fighting.

•  Horses are classified as LIVESTOCK!

• That is complete and utter horseshit and you know it.  Tell that to the bushman of the Kalahari.  Tell that to every single indigenous native culture found around the world that HUNTS and gathers.  Tell that to every cultural and archeological anthropologist that will cite evidence of animal consumption as far back and beyond 250,000 to homo sapien predecessors.  Even our closest ape corollaries (baboons and chimps) are omnivorous and will eat meat when available. If eating meat is cultural, than eating meat is part and parcel of the human condition because the vast majority of us have been doing it since we could walk upright. Quote all you want, but the evidence and logic is so clearly stacked against you.  Humans, even today, are predominantly omnivorous.  Once again...laughable.

• VeganWhiteKnights...FU!!!   When you consider that in a recent scientific, nationwide poll conducted by a respected research group found that 80 percent of Americans are OPPOSED to horse slaughter;  who's trying to force their opinions on whom? Just like the three cowardly congressman who, in a closed door session, managed to get funding for slaughterhouse inspectors added to a needed appropriations bills; or the ag industry fighting to keep what goes on behind closed doors forever sealed from the American people, the pro slaughter forces want to cram horse slaughter down everyone's throats, the majority of the American people who have said they are against it that is.   They want the majority of Americans to fund inspectors to the tune of 5 million dollars for something they are against to begin with and we know is probably a conservative estimate of the true cost, and they want taxpayers in whatever state would be so unfortunate to end up with a slaughterhouse to give them tax  breaks, clean up  the pollution that will invariably result from a slaughter plant opening, make all the upgrades to the infrastructure in whatever community would lose and end up with a pariah slaughter facility, etc. Gee I wonder why people aren't scrambling to open up a slaughterhouse in their community.     And you call us anti slaughter people, among other things, unreasonable?  Someone needs to get hit by the clue bus.   Slaughter is the only thing you pro slaughter people are willing to discuss and the only solution you want to see, when clearly there are other fixes for this problem without slaughtering horses.   And for all the troglodytes, yes VeganWhiteKnight that'd be you, Greater minds than surely yours in the scientific,medical and other fields, have argued that people are indeed natural herbivores and have only 2 million years ago become cultural omnivores.   "Humans are herbivores by anatomical and physiological design who have been inculcated (taught) to eat both flesh and plants in many societies of today.Thus, though humans are 'cultural omnivores', eating flesh causes a number of diseases in humans that are not produced in natural omnivores or carnivores, such as atherosclerosis."William C. Roberts, M.D., editor, American Journal of CardiologyAgain, like with horse slaughter, it's a relatively small group of special interests that want to manipulate and control the majority of Americans:  "I was told my very first day on the job that no matter what the research showed to never suggest eating less meat was a good way to avoid cancer." Former Director of the National Institute of Health

• I am a resident of Mountain Grove and let me make it perfectly clear...the horse slaughter plant is not welcome here and we will fight it all the way.

• I also tried to link a recent Forbes article with Paula Bacon, the mayor of the town in Texas that had one of the last horse slaughter plants. Again, it was filtered out. And I won't copy text because Forbes will get prickly about copyright. You can find the article by searching on Paula Bacon Horse Slaughter Forbes

• I tried to include a link to a paper compiled by a community group who is fighting this plant, but it keeps getting filtered in the comments.  So, I'm going to try copying the relevant bits. If there's a journalist at the Riverfront Times who actually wants this, contact me and I'll give you the link. The facility-The Lamson & Sessions building, which is situated next to S & H Farm Supply and owned by L & R Industries of Cabool, is the proposed site of the processing plant.  Additionally, investors are seeking to buy 30-40 acres from the Industrial Park to be used for lagoons and holding pens.    • Current plans for the plant’s waste include a “three-tier” lagoon system utilizing salt and chemicals to treat eviscerated remains and blood, with the final lagoon using clams as a filter system.  There is no current waste and sewage infrastructure in place that  could accommodate a 2800 horse-per-week load.  • The proposed facility will breed horses on site as well as import horses from across the  nation to be processed into meat for overseas human consumption.  Horses will be  trailered in 24 hours a day, seven days a week.    • Investors project the regular slaughter of 200-400 horses per day, seven days a week.  • Because the meat is intended for human consumption, it is estimated that a minimum of 90% of the horses will be in excellent health at the time of slaughter.

• Well, when Sue Wallis is starving to death, the we'll let her start slaughtering horses.

• I tried to link a white paper presented by a community group organized to fight any horse plant in the Ozarks. The comment system here filters comments with links out, so I'll have to try to re-cap it. It presents solid reasons for not having the plant: There are no facilities in place (sewage and waterwater treatment) to deal with the blood and other by-product of the slaughter process. The plant has plans to slaughter 400 horses a day. This means horses will be trucked in 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Kiss property values of the entire surrounding community good-bye. Of course, the smell and the sound will take care of that. Oh, the pollution from the slaughtering process. The company that wants to build the plant wants all sorts of tax incentives and other government goodies to defray the cost. But how much did they pay in federal taxes at the Texas plant? According to the former mayor, $12.00 a year. They plan on handling waste with a lagoon system, but the type of land surrounding the plant does not deal with lagoons. So, yeah, blood in the old wells. Nummy.  For what: 50 jobs? And guess what? These won't be high paying jobs. I'll be surprised if they're over minimum wage--for truly awful work. So maybe you want to lay off the tired "Oh, it's the HSUS and PETA folks out in force", and actually use that thing on top of your shoulders.

• And you've not been in a horse plant, so what you're telling others applies to you, doesn't it?  But, as the above commenter mentioned, they know advocates who have, and the conditions are appalling. We've seen video. We've heard first hand from a mayor of the town that had one of the last horse slaughter plants. All tell us the same thing: horse slaughter plants are nothing but bad news. Missouri has a bad enough reputation when it comes to animals, including our determination to remain the number one puppymill state in the country. Do we really want to be the first state to open a horse slaughter plant?

• When you consider that one of the three senators who ushered in this change is none other than Roy Blunt, and now this plant is coming to Missouri...

• A person can be against horse slaughter and not be a vegan. That's just your way of attempting to shut down the discussion--categorize the opponents to make them easier to dismiss.  As for your rosy view of the past: people used to be owned as slaves in the past, too, so you may want to check your nostalgia at the door. Horses are primarily companions, and as such are raised differently from food animals, and medicated differently from food animals.  Horse slaughter won't provide a way of caring for homeless horses, because horse slaughter plants only want young, healthy, unmedicated stock. Evidently, the plan for this horse slaughter plant is to have enough space to breed horses specifically for slaughter.  So kind of kills the whole "doing it to help the horses" nonsense. No one has ever devised a humane way to ensure horses don't suffer, badly, during the slaughter process. I don't know if you're turned on by your food suffering badly before it dies, but I prefer humane livestock practices, myself. Did you know that the states that had the last three slaughter houses before they were closed the last time horse slaughter was allowed, have state laws prohibiting horse slaughter? Yup, they don't want the plants back--they're an ecological and community nightmare.

• Actually, VeganWhiteKnights...FU!!! (class act all the way, I might add), you have come to a false conclusion that people are omnivores.  When was the last time that you hunted down a prey animal and by your natural abilities and with your bare hands, killed that prey animal and ate it raw?  Proto  humans only 2 million years ago, when tools and fire first appeared, clearly the products of culture and not nature, that the beasts that would become humans started to eat meat.  Evidence suggests that the creatures that became man ate fruits, roots, nuts, etc., and meat eating was a cultural behavior, not natural, and we most closely resemble herbivores and not carnivores or omnivores.  

• Amen Bunchgrassfarm!!!  It seems to me like HSUS and PETA are getting their people to come out in force, not the other way around.  So obvious....the same tired arguments, and none of them reasonable or logical in any way.

• Congrats on making the choice to eat something else.  I don't begrudge you that.  DO NOT make my choice for me.  I choose to be omnivorous.

• Eating meat is not an "addiction".  Humans are ominvorous and we have all the biological tools to eat both meat and vegetables.  Have you ever considered that maybe human domestication of other animals is part of our nature? Your position if taken to its logical conclusion would involve humans having little to no relationship with animals whatsoever.  You're way out in left field.

• It is quite clear that the militant vegans are out in force in this post, so for all you militant vegans out there, the following test of logic: Humans are by nature omnivorous.  The evidence is clear humans have been eating meat since before we evolved into homo sapiens.  So if humans are by nature omnivorous, having been eating meat since forever, and are no better than animals, and animals eat other animals, then why do you say are we not allowed to eat meat?  And if humans are fundamentally different and able to master animal resources as is our nature, then why are we still not allowed to eat meat? Face it militant vegans, your positions are ludicrously illogical, forced, and unstable.  There is nothing wrong with veganism as a personal choice, but you cross the line with your consistent efforts to force your tired arguments to the rest of us omnivores.  It is unfair and laughable.  YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DICTATE AND ENFORCE YOUR VIEW OF THE WORLD ON THE REST OF US.  Especially when your view is so clearly unreasonable. Unless it is wild, the horse is a domesticated animal and in its present form is the result of human beings playing with its genetics for at least the last 5000 years.  We've been using horses as transport, labor, entertainment, and food for almost as long and there is nothing wrong with this. It has nothing to do with need.  It has nothing to do with obesity.  It has nothing to do with hormones, antibiotics, or the superiority of your vegan lifestyle, etc. ,etc., etc.  It has everything to do with the fact that we have in the past, we can, we should and it can all be done ethically.

• yes, I remember reading a western horse type magazine story many years ago about some families who raised the best homicidal bucking horses around. And they were bragging about it. the bucking horse industry is a big user of the horse slaughter industry. perhaps we really don't need these "homicidal" horses being bred anymore.

•  "IMO - raised, used and treated humanely and when the time comes slaughtered the same.  That's all I ask." Good. Then you agree commercial horse slaughter doesn't meet your criteria because it's inherently inhumane. PS...glad you know you don't rely on Wikipedia for your research. :)

• I know horse slaughter advocates have a hard time with facts, but everything I stated is based on reports from the USDA, as documented in the GAO Report.

• Did you pass grade school math? My horses generate income for the following to the tune of $4K per year per horse to: My vet My farrier My caretaker My local feed/equipment stores The farmer I buy hay from My local tack store Local seed store To state the obvious, dead horses don't require these products and services. And ah, the lame "feral horses" argument. You do realize horses were indigenous to North America? Or do you not believe in science? Let me guess, you're a proponent of welfare cattle ranchers getting cheap ranch land courtesy of the American taxpayer?

•  I don't personally determine whether a facility is humane or not...I rely on the observations of recognized and well-regarded experts. Perhaps you have not had the time to thoroughly investigate conditions at Canadian abattoirs: "Dr. Nicholas Dodman, an anesthesiologist and veterinary behaviorist at Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, audited the footage and states, "My final conclusion, after reviewing 150-plus horse slaughters in this series of videos, is that the process was terrifying for most of the horses and, in many cases, horribly inhumane." At Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation Inc., at least 40% of the horses in the stun box were not rendered immediately unconscious, or revived after stunning. Dr. Dodman adds, "At this slaughterhouse, in cases where a second shot was required, most humane standards, in my opinion, were not met." A large Belgian horse received 11 stunning attempts, and numerous horses whinnied after being shot. One whinnied twice after each of two shots, but no third stunning attempt was made. Canada's Meat Inspection Act - Part III stipulates that immediate loss of consciousness must be attained before an animal is bled." The USDA's criteria for effective stunning calls for a single (one only) shot. As for the fear factor..I'm afraid you are woefully misinformed regarding the head fear responses of cows, sheep, pigs, and chickens versus equines. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Not only that, but the physical location of equine brains versus the brains of livestock you mention, make the captive bold method (very effective for cows) ineffective on equines. The brain of equines sits far back into the skull cavity, unlike the brain of bovines and the other livestock you list. Twist what you want to satisfy yourself, but the fact remains there is no humane method for the commercial slaughter of equines; the humane methods developed for livestock do not apply to horses.

• Given their flight instinct, there's no humane to slaughter horses. The flippant remarks of the author whose "work" is posted above are out of line.

•  Well, I am taken pretty seriously by people, because I base what you refer to as "suppositions" on facts, not speculation. I've had plenty of debates with horse slaughter proponents, who often start with the disingenuous 'taking care of unwanted horses' argument. When pushed for the true cause, every time it comes down to one thing: money. The ability to make a few bucks rather than do right by the horse by spending time marketing it/finding an appropriate home/humanely euthanizing. Every time, without exception, that's why people pushing for slaughter want it. Whether or not they're horse owners. In fact it continually amazes me the stakes non-horse Agriculture takes in this fight - which I suspect is where you come from. Puppy millers, factory farmers - even Monsanto - are all part of the Ag fraternity that is pushing for slaughter - in many cases, without truly understanding what it entails. Just because they're Ag buddies told them to.

• "The last time I checked we didn't hunt horses" Sorry hun but that's one theory of how they disappeared from NA 5 to 10,000  yrs ago.  Arrival of man on the scene just happens to coincide with the end of horses in North America. Euthanasia clinics - really?  Oh no won't they be scared because they have such heightened awareness and with dead horses piling up out back they'll "know" what's coming. "And I know we can use horses for Dressage, Cutting, Reining, Barrel Racing, Racing, Steeple chasing, Harness Racing, Show Jumping, Cross Country, Endurance, Trail Riding, Lessons, Vaulting, Polo, Skijouring, Plowing, Carriages, Wagon trails, Western Pleasure, Hunter/Jumper, Gymkhana, Fox Hunting, Trick Training" I think HSUS feels these activities are abusive too - and perhaps some are but not all.  What does how we use horses have to do with how they end their lives?  IMO - raised, used and treated humanely and when the time comes slaughtered the same.  That's all I ask.

• Sorry - I assumed you understood I meant a beef plant when I said Cargill (IBP at the time).  Until you personally have been inside of a slaughter plant, you have nothing but second hand information to go by (or worse).  Hardly reliable and unbiased when it's from " several advocates" as you say. "how much more difficult it would be to slaughter an animal like a horse, I wonder how much you really know about horses".  Wow - how did we ever do it?    "And please, the attacks on HSUS are totally transparent. We get it. You're paranoid that an effective animal welfare group is trying to improve conditions for livestock, which may eat into the profits of producers" My attack on HSUS is meant to be transparent.  But apparently you've speculated on my motivation there as well.  They've taken up causes, like the ban carriage horses in NYC, that are completely based on BS and twisting of the facts.  I fully support improving conditions for livestock but that seems to not be the goal of HSUS anymore.  That's my complaint.  Nothing to do with profits

• Suppositions like yours are why you can't be taken seriously.  First - how is it "pretty clear" Chevalier is compenstaed by the horse meat lobby?  The fact that they don't agree with you?  That's not evidence. And you certainly can't claim to know the motivations behind horse people that support having horse slaughter plants.  Pure speculation on your part.

• "Live horses put $1,500 to $4,000 per year into their local economy. Slaughtered horses create a one-time fee for the owner of $50 to $200. The rest goes overseas in profit. The math is actually pretty darn basic. Live horses are far, far, far better for our economy than slaughtered ones."      You obviously don't own any horses.  And no horses generate $0 in the local economy.  Also until a horse goes to slaughter it is a live horse generating all that local income (as you claim).  Poor argument.  Also, in your statistics you need to factor in all the feral horses that aren't generating any income and actually are costing the taxpayers.  Hmmm.

• " But, the fact remains, horses cannot be slaughtered humanely,not even in the state-of-the-art facility she designed in Canada." Fact or opinion?  Please explain how you determine whether a facility is humane?  Try using uncharged language in your answer and identify the points at which they fail to meet the humanity standard.  The fear factor would apply to cows, sheep, chickens and certainly animals intelligent as hogs are, so that argument doesn't fly unless you're saying that there is no humane way to slaughter an animal.  In that case your praise of T. Grandin rings hollow.  

• Not true -

• Lies.

• I think it's hilarious how the rescue groups are cleaning up after all these breeders who don't know when to stop while the eaters are like "kill them!". What have horses done to you? Oh they are starving and neglected and without slaughter we will have all these abused horses (right?)... Well here is a clue for you, horse slaughter hasn't stopped! You can send your horse to a kill buyer at any time and it has not stopped anyone from neglecting, abusing or abandoning their horses! Most of the people doing those things don't want their horses to go to slaughter. So they keep them until they are wasting away and that will more than likely get worse if it moves to the states. Besides... the slaughter plants can't ship most horses to Europe anyway after 2013. So it won't be an out for recreational horses because Europe doesn't want our tainted meat! And sure there are withdrawal periods for some meds we give our horses. But look at it like this, Three Angels Farms in TN recently had a truck overturn on the highway with 30 something horses on it. They claimed the horses were going to a rescue in OK. Well two days later a truck pulled up to the Mexican border with 30 something horses on it from Three Angels (just goes to show you how honest the people involved in this are). A few of the horses were denied entry (can't imagine what happened to them... huh.. maybe all those abandoned horses with the chopped off brands and stickers on their butts are rejected slaughter horses? Maybe..) due to injuries.The remaining went through for $11,100 or roughly $350 per horse at a little over .30 a pound. So answer me this.. how is it that a kill buyer pays $50 to $400 a horse at an auction to fill his load, according to recent auction records, and holds those horses for the 90 days withdrawal period, feeds the horses, pays the trucker, keeps their trucks maintained and pays for fuel and makes a PROFIT? THEY DON'T! They haul those horses within a week of coming from auction. Thus the famous saying seven days from stable to table! But the long transports! We need to do away with those! Right? Here is a hint.. Just because Mountain Grove, MO opens a slaughter house does not mean horses will stop shipping to Canada and Mexico. When we had Dallas Crown and the plant in Illinois horses still shipped to Canada and Mexico. And the last time I checked Missouri doesn't cover the whole of the US so horses will still have long shipping times! Even when we had plants here horses were being INHUMANELY shipped. They gouged out eyes, bludgeoned foals so mares could ship, tied mouths shut, horses were trampled to death, broke their legs, smashed their heads... on and on. And all of this happened and is still happening in the US, right under the "inspectors" noses. The main difference? The truckers didn't have to go through the borders and the injured horses went to the slaughter houses, more convenient for them of course. They don't have to abandon all those rejected horses. Unless you bubble wrap them there really isn't a way to haul a group of horses humanely, untied in a cattle truck. But we have SO MANY horses! And so little buyers! Whose fault is that? I put the blame on the breeders and the registries. But we aren't solving this! Oh no! We are working to give those breeders and registries a perfectly inhumane out. Instead of breeding quality horses to quality horses to decrease volume we give breeders who breed 50+ horses incentives and tax breaks! Awesome, huh? No wonder these breeders want slaughter. They want to continue to breed and get rewarded for it! In fact most of them will probably sign on with the breeding for slaughter campaign! Horses will become the new ride-able bovine! I mean what is the difference in horses and cows (sheep, goats, bla bla bla).. Hmm.. Well I know some do ride cows but that isn't the majority, I've never seen anyone ride a sheep or goat or chicken or ect. And I know we can use horses for Dressage, Cutting, Reining, Barrel Racing, Racing, Steeple chasing, Harness Racing, Show Jumping, Cross Country, Endurance, Trail Riding, Lessons, Vaulting, Polo, Skijouring, Plowing, Carriages, Wagon trails, Western Pleasure, Hunter/Jumper, Gymkhana, Fox Hunting, Trick Training... and that list keeps going. So the difference? If you can't see it.. I'm sorry then maybe you have drunk too much of the kool aid. I'd go on but there really is little point. Pro-slaughter people don't want to work together to find a decent solution. Like rescues, gelding and euthanasia clinics, in home rescues, breeding licenses, hay banks and that stuff. NO, of course not, it doesn't include $$$$$! They'd rather go for the easy, profitable out. I have a mare here who is about seven months pregnant, three months ago she was headed to slaughter. She's young, usable and pretty. To me her and her foal are worth the life I can give them, including the beautiful broke to ride gelding that came with her. To the pro-slaughter folks? They aren't worth the ground I'm keeping them on. Haven't we grown past the society that needs to put everything from roach to lion on their plate? Don't we have enough animals to eat? Chickens, Geese, Rabbits, Goats, Cattle (all breeds of them), Buffalo, Turkey, Hogs, Deer, Squirrel, Snake, Turtle, Frogs.. Again, isn't that enough? We aren't starving. We waste nearly half the food we produce as is! Horse meat is going to feed the emaciated.. it cost $17+ a pound! And for all of you hunters out there who say that we are at the top of the food chain...bla bla bla... The last time I checked we didn't hunt horses.. not too long ago we were using them to hunt!

•  Nice try. I am not going 'after' Temple Grandin, as you say, nor am I opposed to meat consumption. I merely disagree with her continuing quest to prove there is a humane method to slaughter horses.  Her work with livestock - cows, pigs, sheep - has been exemplary and she should be applauded for those achievements. But, the fact remains, horses cannot be slaughtered humanely,not even in the state-of-the-art facility she designed in Canada.  The Pro camp keeps throwing her name out, expecting the unknowing and unwitting masses to believe in its cause based solely on her reputation with livestock slaughter methods for cows, pigs, and sheep. Horse slaughter and livestock slaughter are like apples and flamingos. There is no comparison. " And whatever work she has done is certainly more beneficial to horse welfare than the banning of horse slaughter plants ever will be." Really? Continuing to work on something that can't be done in a humane fashion to prove a point is beneficial??? To whom? The Pros and the owners of the abattoirs, maybe, but certainly not the horses.

• "Sorry bro but horses were widespread and not uniquely indigenous to NA. They died out in some places like NA but Asia didn't need them to "come back" over any land bridge.  They were already there.  The horses that "helped build this country" obviously had to be imported from somewhere since even you admit they weren't here as of the 15th and 16th centuries. "By about 15,000 years ago, Equus ferus was a widespread holarctic species. Horse bones from this time period, the late Pleistocene, are found in Europe, Eurasia, Beringia, and North America.[110] Yet between 10,000 and 7,600 years ago, the horse became extinct in North America and rare elsewhere.[111][112][113] The reasons for this extinction are not fully known, but one theory notes that extinction in North America paralleled human arrival.[" Wrong...again.  You really need to stop relying on Wikipedia for your source of knowledge. Ross D. E. MacPhee, curator of The Race to the End of the Earth, who is a research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History specializing in the evolutionary history of mammals and the biology and causation of extinction, has this to say about the origins of horses: " 1. It is correct that the standing crop of wild horses in the US is recently derived from lines domesticated in Europe (and Asia). 2. But those lines themselves go much further back in time, and converge on populations that lived in North America during the latter part of the Pleistocene (2.5M to 10k years ago). The evidence for this, until recently, has been primarily morphological, based on comparisons of living vs. fossil horses. The genetic evidence from ancient DNA is still preliminary, but it seems to point to the same conclusion, which is that the species Equus caballus–the species encompassing all domestic horses and their wild progenitors–arose on this continent. 3. The evidence thus favors the view that this species is “native” to North America, given any rational understanding of the term “native”. By contrast, there are no paleontological or genetic grounds for concluding that it is native to any other continent. 4. From a scientific standpoint, it is completely irrelevant that native horses died out in North America 10,000 years ago, or that later populations were domesticated in central Asia 6000 years ago. Such considerations have no bearing on their status as having originated on this continent. 5. It is worth noting that dozens of other species in addition to native horses died out at the close of the Pleistocene, in an episode termed the megafaunal extinctions. The only major difference is that, long before 10,000 bp, E. caballus had established itself on other continents (South America as well as Eurasia) by crossing landbridges. There they survived. Reintroduction to North America 500 years ago is, biologically, a non-event: horses were merely returned to part of their former native range, where they have since prospered because ecologically they never left. 6. Whether these considerations should play a role in policy decisions I leave to others. At the same time, it needs to be more widely understood that the horse’s status as a native North American species is beyond serious question, whatever side of the debate over wild horse control one leans toward."

• Yeah, guest, but that's the beauty of it, none of us are "starvin" and there are other things we could be "eatin."  

• Just because you have closed your eyes and ears to the routine abuses that happen during the slaughter pipeline doesn't mean the objective among us haven't witnessed the brutality of horse slaughter. I would direct you to look at the FOIA pictures of horses arriving at the slaughter plants with eyes gouged out (admitted by kill buyers as a method of reducing fighting during transport), massive lacerations, limbs torn off or broken or dead on arrival. And that's just transport! Nevermind the abuses at auction that have been documented by Animals Angels, or the absurd failure rate of stunning horses before they're killed. And yes, the several days of horrific conditions leading to slaughter are every bit as terrifying for horses as a half hour dog fight.

• Selling your horse to slaughter has NEVER ceased to be an option for American horse owners, despite moving the plants. Horse owners can still sell their horses to the SAME kill buyers, at the SAME American livestock auctions - and as a result, are selling them in the SAME quantities as when we had American plants. No change. Sorry the facts just don't support your theory. We're still selling the same number of American horses to slaughter as we ever were. Any changes in the horse market are due to the economy.

•  I do find it rather telling that the people who complain about "mean spirited outlaw" horses are always pro-slaughter. Perhaps you're all just poor or abusive horsemen? I've been around horses my entire life and have never encountered a horse that couldn't be rehabilitated with time, patience and good handling. In addition, there are not enough so-called "mean spirited outlaw horses" to support a horse slaughter business. If you can't handle the horse, either find someone who can or give it a humane death. That's what real horsemen do.

•  Not sure who you're calling an "animal rights dumbass," but I've been a horse person my entire life, owned and trained horses and also work with several rescues. The facts are that unlike slaughter of livestock, horse slaughter accounts for a measley 1% of the horse population, so it will never be a population control tool. In addition - perhaps you missed it - this proposed slaughter facility is going to BREED HORSES. Yes, all of you people who masqueraded the 'slaughter is necessary to take care of unwanted horses' myth must be happy now that your theory is finally being exposed for the mockery it is.

•  Two points here - it's pretty clear "Chevalier" is compensated in some way by the horse meat lobby. Second, no educated horse lover supports sending our equine partners into the protracted suffering of the horse slaughter pipeline. The real motives of horse people that support slaughter are easy to identify... having a place to dump their culls and make a couple of bucks.

• I have not been inside a horse slaughter plant (as indeed you haven't since Cargill doesn't slaughter horses), but I know several advocates who have, and I have heard their horrifying first hand accounts. Slaughtering horses is an entirely different proposition than other animals. If you can't understand how much more difficult it would be to slaughter an animal like a horse, I wonder how much you really know about horses? And please, the attacks on HSUS are totally transparent. We get it. You're paranoid that an effective animal welfare group is trying to improve conditions for livestock, which may eat into the profits of producers.

• "Resistance to horse slaughter is another  classic example of emotional knee-jerk reaction by people with immature and infantile opinions regarding animals and their relationship with humans." Let's take this argument out of that simplistic view of the matter and rather talk about how by advocating adding another source of red meat (i.e., horsemeat) to the American diet, you realize if that happens it will further contribute to the massive inflation of economic costs of health care and environmental damage?    ..."No logical reason whatsoever why domesticated horses should not be consumed."    What about  the moral corruption and societal degeneration that occurs when people fail to feel guilt about causing suffering to living, feeling creatures?   ..."does not cross the line of purposely harming for its own sake"...that's just what you ARE doing by espousing horse slaughter.   There is NO need to eat horsemeat.  I'm sure you're not starving.  There are alternative sources of food,  fruits, vegetables, grains, etc., so you are proposing torturing and slaughtering, in this case horses, for a trivial human need, your addiction to eat meat.   You know forward thinking people actually can and do believe that animals exist of their own accord and for their own purposes, which don't include how they are "useful" to men (and women), that this so-called usefulness is not their sole reason for being.     The trouble with you and people like you is you have failed to evolve and are still living in that cave spiritually and emotionally.  

• " horse meat lobbyists are being paid to comment here - and on the weekend no less."      Not lobbyists - true horse lovers.

• Really - you're going to go after Temle Grandin?  That tips your hand showing that you are really in oppostion to meat consumption  period since she has done more to make handling and slaughter facilities safe and humane than anyone in recent history.  If you cared about the welfare of animals, you would be applauding her efforts not berating her.  What makes you think Temple Grandin has been working on humane horse slaughter facilities for 30 years?  And whatever work she has done is certainly more beneficial to horse welfare than the banning of horse slaughter plants ever will be. And you read the 900 page FOIA report?  Surely.

• Yeah, change the argument to national sovereignty.  I'm a farmer and a liberal but I am absolutely embarassed at the BS being tossed about on this issue.  Wake up and look at what you're saying - "your town will be inundated with rapists and murderers" because you have a slaughter facility there?  Or "illegal workers"? I bet not one person here has actually been inside of a slaughter facility during operation.  Well I have been in the Cargill plant at Pasco WA and it's nothing like the hype you're seeing posted here.  Yes, it is a slaughter plant, not a daycare facility, so there is going to be blood.  As far as fear goes, you don't think hogs or cattle feel fear?  Or your beloved old dog when he's at the vet for his last round up?  And HSUS has a list of points on their website regarding horse slaughter that are well written but not true.  Sad because I used to think they were a reputable organization.  Not anymore - seems they've been hijacked by the PETA kooks. 

• The horse vets in our area said when the Bush Admin pulled support for USDA inspectors to go to horse slaughter facilities and essentially shut down horse slaughter in the US, they were barraged with requests to euthanize horses at rates they'd never seen before (and most horses were standing dead already due to lack of care).  Hardly humane. At BE RESPONSIBLE - stopping overbreeding would be great just like people stopping the use of fossil fuels but it ain't gonna happen.  You need to live in the real world and recognize that there will always be more unwanted horses than there will be places for them to go.  So what do you do about it? 

• " We are simply trying to outlaw factory horse slaughter which causes cruelty to horses comparable to what dogs endure dog fighting." Again - MISINFORMATION AND HYPE!!!   Horse slaughter is like dog fighting?  Are you nuts?  So that would mean that any form animal slaughter facility would be like dog fighting, because the methods are very similar in beef plant too.     

• Sorry bro but horses were widespread and not uniquely indigenous to NA. They died out in some places like NA but Asia didn't need them to "come back" over any land bridge.  They were already there.  The horses that "helped build this country" obviously had to be imported from somewhere since even you admit they weren't here as of the 15th and 16th centuries. "By about 15,000 years ago, Equus ferus was a widespread holarctic species. Horse bones from this time period, the late Pleistocene, are found in Europe, Eurasia, Beringia, and North America.[110] Yet between 10,000 and 7,600 years ago, the horse became extinct in North America and rare elsewhere.[111][112][113] The reasons for this extinction are not fully known, but one theory notes that extinction in North America paralleled human arrival.[" Janwindsong - Hold on sister.  Under your description, you too would be a classic narcissist "you want what you want and don't give a damn how others see it".  You just want something different than the previous poster.  Slaughtering umwanted horses is NOT pollution not is it using or endorsing illegal labor (whatever that means).  Humanely killing an unwanted animal is neither abusive nor cruel but letting them stand in a pen and waste away starving to death IS.  Get informed about what horse slaughter plants actually do (preferably from an unbiased source - not HSUS) before you start making allegations.  "May I suggest that pushing to eat horsemeat is a classic example of a narcisstic personality - you want what you want and don't give a damn how others see it no matter how many laws prevent pollution, use of illegal labor, abuse of the animals and cruelty to a being who perceives a bond of love." Not sure you understand the dynamics of herd animals but ......

TotalComments: 95