Airwave From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1117 posts, RR: 3 Posted (7 years 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 966 times:
Original article posted here. Fair use excerpt follows.
Quote: Lawmakers are again trying to stop horses from being slaughtered and sent abroad for food.
The House adopted a provision Thursday that would prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from selling wild horses and burros to slaughterhouses. By voice vote, the amendment was attached to a spending bill for the Department of the Interior, the BLM's parent agency.
American horse meat is sold mostly for consumption in Europe and Asia, though some goes to U.S. zoos.
"Horses are icons in American culture," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "They took us into battle, provided us with transportation and even carried our mail."
"They shouldn't be sent to slaughter to be dismembered for overseas consumers," Pacelle said.
Defenders of the practice said slaughter is more humane than allowing wild horses to die of starvation.
"When you talk about a horse dying a natural death on the range, it's not a pretty picture," said former Rep. Charlie Stenholm, D-Texas, a consultant to the slaughter plants. "Having a coyote or wolf eating a dying horse is not a pretty picture."
(...)
Pacelle argued that horses can be skittish, making them prone to thrash about when they are frightened.
"They see other horses that are being slaughtered and they are terrified," Pacelle said.
Stenholm said horses are treated better than other animals, such as cattle and chickens, at slaughter plants.
"We do a pretty darn good job regarding the welfare of the animals that are going to be slaughtered," Stenholm said.
I thought this was an interesting article, considering the beef industry's latest trials with exports to Japan and Mad Cow disease, as well as the poultry producers' bouts with Avian Flu--both of which have received plenty of media exposure.
While I agree with the argument based on systemic overpopulation, the argument about "natural deaths" and those at the mouths of coyotes is odd--isn't this the way things are supposed to be in nature? Granted, horses were an accidental introduction into the American ecosystem, but the point remains--they've assimilated and adapted to their habitat and have become a vital part of the great circle of life. Anything less than the maintenance of that balance
Airwave
My apologies if this has already been discussed, but my seach didn't discern anything. If this is a duplicate thread, please delete. Thank you.
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
YeahitsK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 938 times:
I remember seeing this story on 60 minutes or some other news report, and I feel this is the right move. I remember them saying the wild horses were actually in danger of disappearing due to the scale of this operation. Why the heck can't we just leave nature alone unless it needs our help?
Quoting Airwave (Thread starter): When you talk about a horse dying a natural death on the range, it's not a pretty picture," said former Rep. Charlie Stenholm, D-Texas, a consultant to the slaughter plants. "Having a coyote or wolf eating a dying horse is not a pretty picture."
That is a strange logic, you can tell where he gets his paycheck from. It's been happening for millions of years, at least with Buffalo which is also probably pretty gruesome. It's obvious he's trying to play on people's emotions regarding horses (this is a guy that advocates catching them, grinding them up, and shipping them off as a product), but I am one of those people who feel wolves represent the essence of nature and also deserve protection. If they can pull down an occasional old or sick horse to survive, good for them.
Cptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2562 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 938 times:
Yet more "stuff" for the The House to be spending "our" time on instead of the really important things that they absolutely, positively will never have the cajones to address. Regards...jack
YeahitsK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 929 times:
Quoting Cptkrell (Reply 3): Yet more "stuff" for the The House to be spending "our" time on instead of the really important things that they absolutely, positively will never have the cajones to address. Regards...jack
I see where you are coming from, but it doesn't bother me if they take care of some business inside our borders. It was an ammendment attached to a spending bill and they took a voice vote on it. Probably didn't take very long at all. I see it as good news and something productive coming from a Congress currently debating an ammendment to ban gay marriage.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1117 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3636 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
