Horse Slaughter
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Topix is lowlife scum with no”

Since: Jun 12

respect for anyone...

#2 Feb 6, 2013
Ryan wrote:
"Hi, I do not want this to come off as being rude but I cannot understand why you say the horror of slaughter. Do you think that we are improving the quality of horses lives by keeping them from being humanely killed for meat and hides. Do you realize that because of the ban on horse slaughter not only have over 1000 jobs been lost in the US but horses are being left to starve, and are being shot or left to die on farms and ranches all over the county. What are ranchers to do with elderly/sick, or horses they can no longer afford to feed which has happened all over the country. Not to mention the cost of local and federal governments having to deal with neglected horses. If you truly care about horses welfare you would want to reinstate the horse kill."
There's nothing ignorant about that at all, it's the truth.
And it's exactly what happens when a sustainable industry involving animals is stopped.
The animals that would otherwise have been killed humanely & their products used are left to starve of fend for themselves & a lot of the time have a lot harder death than being put down humanely in an abattoir.

It's a truth that animal activists just cannot understand & if they do understand it, they refuse to acknowledge it.
Then they label anyone who disagrees as ignorant, simply because they have a different point of view on the subject.
j corcoran

Jeffersonville, IN

#3 Feb 7, 2013
No its not true, when the last 2 plants were shut down there was less than 200 jobs lost. Horses have never stopped being slaughtered. Last year over 130,000 US horses were sent to slaughter in Canada and Mexico. At the same time the plants in the US shut down the economy started going down.

80% of the US population is opposed to horse slaughter for human consumption. And that is what horse slaughter is about.... eating horses. We dont raise our horses for food in this country, therefore we give our horses medications which are banned from use in ANY animal intended for human consumption. Banned because there are no withdrawal times and because they can kill people, cause cancer and birth defects.

The FDA classifies horses as companion animals just like our dogs and cats, what's next? Slaughtering our cats and dogs?

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#4 Feb 7, 2013
j corcoran wrote:
The FDA classifies horses as companion animals just like our dogs and cats, what's next? Slaughtering our cats and dogs?
Why not? Cats and dogs are food source in other cultures. Bovine are revered as pets in other cultures but consumed in our culture. Cats, dogs, cows, horses or any other animal do not have an innate protection from becoming food for humans or any other animal. Giving a specific species protection because seems rather silly.
HannahKat37

University Park, PA

#5 Feb 7, 2013
I think that there was a good point brought up here, animals raised for consumption are kept under different circumstances in order to ensure that they are appropriate for consumption, horses in this country have been kept and treated as companion animals for so long it would take awhile, and some individualized breeding to ensure that their bloodlines were not carrying something harmful to humans, not to mention the fact that I doubt most Americans would really be into eating horses enough to actually make an industry out of it.Thus, in my opinion the argument that horse slaughter is a viable employer is a bit null. There has to be a market for what is being produced, a simple supply and demand concept. I just do not think there is a market for horse meat.

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#6 Feb 7, 2013
HannahKat37 wrote:
I think that there was a good point brought up here, animals raised for consumption are kept under different circumstances in order to ensure that they are appropriate for consumption, horses in this country have been kept and treated as companion animals for so long it would take awhile, and some individualized breeding to ensure that their bloodlines were not carrying something harmful to humans, not to mention the fact that I doubt most Americans would really be into eating horses enough to actually make an industry out of it.Thus, in my opinion the argument that horse slaughter is a viable employer is a bit null. There has to be a market for what is being produced, a simple supply and demand concept. I just do not think there is a market for horse meat.
Horses can be raised for the purpose of meat and then they would never get the steroids and such that everybody is concerned about. If nobody in the US wants to eat horse meat, it could easily be exported to Europe for a profit. Lord knows that we need to increase exports and this seems like a terrific way to do it.
HannahKat37

Southampton, PA

#7 Feb 8, 2013
Horses are generally very expensive to raise, more expensive than cattle or pigs or other forms of meat. I am not going to deny the need for export increase, I just do not think that horses are the way to go. Is there really (and I ask because I honestly don't know) a demand for horse meat outside the US?

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#8 Feb 8, 2013
HannahKat37 wrote:
Horses are generally very expensive to raise, more expensive than cattle or pigs or other forms of meat. I am not going to deny the need for export increase, I just do not think that horses are the way to go. Is there really (and I ask because I honestly don't know) a demand for horse meat outside the US?
The more expensive it is to produce, the more expensive it is to sell. There is an overseas market for horse meat. Europe and Asia are the primary consumers of horse meat.
HannahKat37

Southampton, PA

#9 Feb 8, 2013
I see your point, but I still do not think that it makes sense to raise horses as a food source when culturally here it is just not acceptable. There are so many other commodities that we could make and export that are more acceptable and require less upfront cost. Additionally, the slaughter or horses for a food source will still not solve the issue of what to do with neglected horses. Horses for food would be an entire different investment and industry.

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#10 Feb 8, 2013
HannahKat37 wrote:
I see your point, but I still do not think that it makes sense to raise horses as a food source when culturally here it is just not acceptable. There are so many other commodities that we could make and export that are more acceptable and require less upfront cost. Additionally, the slaughter or horses for a food source will still not solve the issue of what to do with neglected horses. Horses for food would be an entire different investment and industry.
I don't know why it is culturally not acceptable. It isn't a logical stance. Also, if the revenue offsets the cost, it doesn't matter what the cost is. Lobster is expensive to harvest as well but the cost of harvest is worth the revenue that it generates. I also don't care what they do with unwanted horses. Simply put them to sleep if nobody wants them.
Hadrian

UK

#11 Feb 9, 2013
House meat is great so much so we call it beef in the UK
Hadrian

UK

#12 Feb 9, 2013
That's horse meat
HannahKat37

Southampton, PA

#13 Feb 10, 2013
While your stance makes a point, I still do not believe that the slaughter of horses really would ever be the first of out options to increase export revenue. In the end I feel it would really just cause more scandal than it is worth, regardless of my personal opinion on the practice. Sometimes I feel it is smarter to choose your battles, don't do something you know is going to cause a huge fight if you don't absolutely have to.

Since: Feb 13

University Park, PA

#14 Feb 10, 2013
This article has touched on a number of issues concerning different groups. From the discussion generated so far, it seems that there is the issue of animal rights/food ethics, the question of distinction between pets and animals raised for consumption, and the economic effects of raising horses for meat. I propose that we systematically discuss these three issues in a civic manner to reach a group consensus on this thread as to how we ought to respond to the topic of raising horses for meat. Then, after reaching consensus, we can discuss what practicalities we must undertake (i.e. supporting Ryan's photography project, lobbying the FDA to declassify horses as companion animals) to convert decision into action.

I ask that our discussion focus specifically on the status of raising horses for meat in the United States, although examples of practices in other countries may be used in the deliberative process. Further, I respectfully ask that we refer to our topic as "The Raising of Horses for Meat," so as to not start from a biased position; however, we all concede that this involves the killing of horses as per specific standards and regulations in the United States. Lastly, I ask that each participant in this discussion label their discussion either:
1. animal rights/food ethics
2. the distinction between pets and animals raised for consumption
3. the economic effects of raising horses for meat

This should help to organize our deliberation and keep us within bounds so that the discussion stays on track and progresses toward our end goal of reaching group consensus. If you think another topic is sufficiently relevant to this deliberation and wish it to be included in the discussion, simply voice your opinion and introduce your new label so that others may deliberate with respect to the new topic as well.

Thank you all and I look forward to having a productive deliberation with everyone!

“Topix is lowlife scum with no”

Since: Jun 12

respect for anyone...

#15 Feb 10, 2013
I see no difference between raising horses for meat than cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, chooks etc. etc. etc..
The issue is human emotion.

Since: Feb 13

University Park, PA

#16 Feb 10, 2013
As an equal member of this deliberation I will also participate as an opinionated individual, while remaining within the aforementioned parameters for civility and progressive deliberation.

2. The Distinction Between Pets and Animals Raised for Consumption:
"Pet" is defined by the Webster's II Riverside Dictionary as, "An animal kept for enjoyment or as a companion." Relativism is inherent in the concept of an animal as a pet. A work animal for some may be a best friend for others. A horse may be treated as an economic possession (as in horse racing and breeding), livestock (when horses are raised for meat), or as a pet. This muddy relativism is not restricted to horses though--dogs, alpacas, llamas, goats, sheep, even skunks (and many others) bring up this ambiguous issue of definition in human-animal relationships. I propose that the principal caregiver is the most qualified for defining such an animal's status (whether or not this is the right of humans to do is a separate issue for 1. animal rights/food ethics). It then follows that whether a horse is to be a pet or an animal raised for meat, is up to the discretion of its principal caregiver (see my following post for justification of this under 1. animal rights/food ethics). However, there is a large gap between a caregiver's treatment of an animal and a nation's treatment of an animal. The collective, comprehensive, overall treatment of an animal within a nation forms that nation's cultural attitude toward the treatment of the animal. It is then the prevailing cultural attitude that influences governing stances and regulations on relative topics such as the raising of horses for meat. The FDA's classification of horses as companion animals is not the result of some higher, objective rule, but rather the prevailing cultural attitude towards horses in contemporary American culture. Based upon this and the cultural taboo against eating pets, I think that we, this group of deliberators, should be satisfied with the FDA's classification and support projects like Ryan's to promote the ethical treatment of horses as pets (sidenote--I personally believe we should champion the ethical treatment of all animals, but our treatment should differ between pets and other animals).
However, the principles upon which I based my reasoning would also lead to the opposite conclusion (championing the declassification of horses as pets so that they could be raised for meat) if that were the prevailing cultural attitude. I do not believe that following the prevailing cultural attitude constitutes a tyranny of the majority simply because principal caregivers can always choose to treat their animals differently. Just as there are vegetarians and vegans that stroll through the meat aisle at the grocery store but choose to not purchase and consume meat, thus showing their personal disapproval of the matter, if we lived in a country that raised horses for meat, caregivers could likewise choose to raise horses as pets or engage in other civic activities to discourage the raising of horses for meat. In fact, many countries in Europe, South America, and Asia have the prevailing attitude that it is acceptable to eat horse meat, even though many dissenters live within their borders.

But I am digressing a little bit. To reiterate, based on the United States' prevailing cultural attitude about the raising of horses for meat, I think that we, this group of deliberators, should be satisfied with the FDA's classification and support projects like Ryan's to promote the ethical treatment of horses as pets.

Since: Feb 13

University Park, PA

#17 Feb 10, 2013
_Orion_:
I would tend to agree with you. If you read my post that followed yours, you will see that I broadened the scope of "human emotion" to an entire country, referring to it as, "the prevailing cultural attitude." Since I agree that the difference between which animals are pets and which are raised for meat lies in human emotion, I am interested to see if you agree with the rest of my reasoning. Or do you think that there should be no distinction or that it is an entirely personal matter? If you believe in no distinction or personal decision, then I ask how you would suggest that the practice be regulated across a nation. There must be consensus, that is the purpose of government, otherwise uncivil disagreements and fights would break out and anarchy would ensue.

If anybody else disagrees with my reasoning in the previous post please voice your opinion as well. Please criticize any weak points that you see and then either offer alternatives or suggestions for strengthening the position if you agree with it. Nobody should take offense at criticism within this deliberation and I hope that it will lead us to a resolute and firm final consensus. Thanks!

Since: Feb 13

University Park, PA

#18 Feb 10, 2013
As promised in my first post as an active and equal member of this deliberation, I will now discuss my justification for the discretion of an animal's principal caregiver in determining whether a specific horse is to be a pet or to be raised for meat.

1. Animal Rights/Food Ethics
Most topics that are not subject to an objective authority are settled by the consensus human convention. This is done through law and government, under which constituents must be willing to accept decisions otherwise suffer punishment if they wish to be included within such a government. I say this because human convention and the resulting laws and rules of government are used to determine when a human being is subject to the discretion of their principal caregiver or legal guardian (this is under 18 years of age in the U.S.).
In the U.S., animals, both pets (most at least) and livestock, must be registered with the appropriate authorities (usually a state licensing agency). This creates a legal convention (agreed upon by the people under the government) that gives registered ownership of animals to a certain person, household, farm, or corporation. This is analogous to the responsibilities of parenthood or guardianship that human convention has agreed upon in contemporary United States society for the raising and responsibility of minors. As parents or guardians have legally-agreed-upon discretion over their children, this discretion is also due to the legal owners/guardians of animals. Now, this discretion is similar in nature but not equal in magnitude. For example, parents cannot decide legally to kill their child for meat, whereas the owner of a cow can under our agreed-upon legal system. My reasoning has already established my justification for the discretion of an animal's principal caregiver in determining whether a specific horse is to be a pet or to be raised for meat, so my goal for this post is complete. However, one final word as to why the discretion of a parent/guardian over a child is not equal in magnitude to the discretion of an owner/guardian of an animal: There are certain distinct differences between homo sapiens and other animal species, significantly in sentience (awareness of surroundings and capability of feeling pain) and self-determination that are implicitly recognized by all of humanity. These differences account for the differences in magnitude of discretion.

If you wish to respond to the subject matter of this post, please do so and offer your opinion as well as constructive criticism or suggested improvements if you are in agreement. Please also specify if you are replying to the main subject of my post or my final addendum (because I have a feeling that will stir up conversation as well). As always, thanks! and I hope this deliberation progresses so that we may reach a group consensus!

“Topix is lowlife scum with no”

Since: Jun 12

respect for anyone...

#19 Feb 10, 2013
I think it should be up to the individual.
If someone wants a horse as a pet, good for them.
If someone else wants to raise horses for meat & skins they should be able to.
And so long as the animals are treated & slaughtered humanely they should be able to do this free of the rot & carry on from animal activists.

Interesting you mention vegans above, I have no problem as a meat eater if someone else chooses to live a vegetarian of vegan lifestyle, that's their business & good luck to them.
But I have a real problem with some of these nutjobs always in everyone's face about it, always trying to interfere with the lifestyle of others just because they don't agree with it.

Which brings us back to my point, the main issue to overcome in reaching any consensus is human emotion.

Since: Feb 13

University Park, PA

#20 Feb 10, 2013
_Orion_:
I see your point and I would say that my personal opinion probably leans closer to yours than some others. However, I must ask again, since you said you believe it is the individual's decision whether or not a horse will be a pet or meat--how you would suggest that the practice be regulated across a nation? There must be consensus, that is the purpose of government, otherwise uncivil disagreements and fights would break out and anarchy would ensue. There must be a system for regulation across a nation. While total individual determination and responsibility may be ideal for you, it is not an ideal that is possible. If one person believes horses should be only pets and their neighbor raises horses as livestock and believes horses should only be raised for the purpose of providing meat and they are both adamant about their position to the point that they sabotage each others' operations, then government and law must be called into play to settle the interpersonal dispute. And it will be settled based upon society's consensus regarding the treatment of horses. At least that is my opinion for how such a matter of interpersonal conflict should be settled civily. So I guess I am asking if you agree with this practice of governmental authority for settling dispute based upon the prevailing cultural attitude. Or do you propose another system that would solve such disputes civily? If you do, that would essentially mean governing humanity in an entirely different fashion, an entirely different fashion that they must agree to be governed under. If you can convince the members of this discussion, then I would say you may have a good chance of convincing others as well.

But we are getting to hung up in political theory. What's important is that you also agree that for: 2. The Distinction Between Pets and Animals Raised for Consumption -- there is no set, objective determinant to distinguish between pets and livestock so that all humanity will agree upon it.
I am interested, does anyone else in this deliberation disagree and think that there is an objective determinant to distinguish between "pet" and "livestock" so that all humanity will agree what is a pet and what is livestock? If not, we are moving in the direction of general group consensus for 2, and then we can progress and see if the group agrees with my reasoning for the prevailing cultural attitude as the determining factor for how an animal should be treated by a nation as a whole.

_Orion_: Thank you very much for your input and participation. I look forward to reading if you agree with my opinion that the prevailing cultural attitude should serve as the determining factor for how an animal should be treated by a nation as a whole.
Also, do not forget that we currently have two other areas open for deliberation as well regarding the topic of "The Raising of Horses for Meat": 1. Animal Rights/Food Ethics and 3. The Economic Effects of Raising Horses for Meat. Moving toward group consensus in these three areas (and possibly other areas if anybody suggests them) will help us progress toward consensus on this whole topic. Then from there we can decide what would be the best idea for each of us to do concerning our consensus._Orion_: Judging from your depth of thought in your posts, you may also enjoy discussing 1. Animal Rights/Food Ethics. I encourage you to take a look at my post on the subject and to formulate and post your own opinions on the topic as well. There is so much to say on that matter though, and many people have differing opinions, so I would urge you and other members involved in this deliberation to keep it focused in relation to "The Raising of Horses for Meat." Be sure to give your opinion and justification for your opinion, whether it is a personal anecdote that you have, a fact you learned, or a set of reasoned principles. This way, everyone in this deliberation will understand your thought process and be able to constructively comment. Thanks!

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#21 Feb 10, 2013
DeliberateDeliberation wrote:
This article has touched on a number of issues concerning different groups. From the discussion generated so far, it seems that there is the issue of animal rights/food ethics, the question of distinction between pets and animals raised for consumption, and the economic effects of raising horses for meat. I propose that we systematically discuss these three issues in a civic manner to reach a group consensus on this thread as to how we ought to respond to the topic of raising horses for meat.
I think it is best for each individual to determine what is best for them so long as it does not damage the human species as a whole. each individual can determine what dogs, cows, cats, horses and every critter's purpose. If I want to eat cow and you want to eat horse and someone else wants to eat dog, we can happily coexist without ever needing to come to a consensus which isn't really based in any kind of objective reality anyway.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Animal Rights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Grab a Pussy!': PETA Billboards Urging Pet Adop... (Oct '16) 1 hr Squach 2,380
News Former Humane Society director arrested for ani... Sep 14 casinoangela607 1
News Lawsuit settled over rights to monkey's selfie ... Sep 12 MR EMMETT TILL. 8
News The Animal Rights Movement Gives a Gay Man Less... Sep 12 Christsharian Col... 2
News Locals charged with dogfighting and animal crue... (Jul '10) Sep 8 Dog the Booty Hunter 27
News SeaWorld seeks restraining order vs. protesters Sep 2 Common Sense 2
News 100 dogs sent from Texas to New Jersey followin... Aug 30 winona54 1
More from around the web