Post by bryn on Jan 27, 2007 9:29:50 GMT -8
Very good article. Please go to the site to post your comments!!!
blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2007/01/the_bad_guys_lose_big_on_horse.html
The Bad Guys Lose Big on Horse Slaughter
Never mind the lacquered platitudes that will swallow up tonight's State of the Union speech. Never mind the flood of hubristic presidential candidates starting to run a political race no one is interested in following. Never mind even the start of the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial, the results of which will, in the end, impact the lives of no one but Libby, his family, and the massive legal entourages that have sprung up around the case. The big legal news over the past week is and was a decision last week by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that could finally spell the end of two of the nation's three brutal slaughterhouses whose owners are responsible each year for the inhumane deaths of about 100,000 American horses each year.
The conservative federal appeals court ruled unanimously that a 1949 Texas law prohibits the slaughter of horses for human consumption overseas, a position that had been challenged by Beltex Corporation and Dallas Crown, Inc., two companies operating slaughterhouses in the Lone Star State. The companies had argued that federal regulations trumped the state law. Wrong. And even an attorney for the companies told the Dallas Morning News that he doubts that the U.S Supreme Court will take the case.
If the ruling stands, Texas prosecutors will be free to go after the owners and operators of these awful places. And if and when they do there will be only a single horse slaughterhouse left in the country, in Illinois. And the good news doesn't stop there. New legislation was introduced last week in Congress to impose a federal ban on the practice. Last year, a similiar measure made it through the House of Representatives but then stalled in the Senate. New Congress. New term. New momentum. It's time to finally end this phase of our country's corporate life. Here's how the 5th Circuit put it and I could not say it any better: "The lone cowboy riding his horse on a Texas trail is a cinematic icon... Not once in memory did the cowboy eat his horse...."
By Andrew Cohen | January 23, 2007; 9:15 AM ET
Previous: One Zany Day in the Life of the War on Terror | Next: Libby, Libby, Libby, on the Label, Label, Label
Comments
Please email us to report offensive comments.
Maybe this blog should be re-titled the "Horse Slaughter Blog" or perhaps just the "Obsessed with Relatively Trivial Issues Blog".
Posted by: Ryan | January 23, 2007 10:18 AM
The Libby trial is an obstruction of justice case directly related to the outing of a CIA agent, the complaint was brought at the request of the Justice department, and you feel it will not have far reaching consequences??
Posted by: frances | January 23, 2007 10:56 AM
The Bush administration and the all-about-money Republicans have worked diligently to categorize many issues, this included, as "relatively trivial." I applaud Andrew for celebrating this victory that is perhaps in some minds minor, but that offers hope to the rest of us who remain concerned about ecological well being, inhumane practices against people and animals, and the undeniable fact that today in this country deep-pocketed, lobbying-savvy businesses too often make the rules.
Posted by: Christine | January 23, 2007 12:05 PM
I also, applaud Mr. Cohen for bringing this story to light.
What is trivial about killing 100,000 horses annually? I believe more people would support legisation to end this grisly practice if they knew about it. Where do these horses come from, anyway? Are they bred just for slaughter?
And I thought puppy mills were bad!
Posted by: Cecile Batchelor | January 23, 2007 01:11 PM
Let's see. How could the consumption of horse meat be trivial? Gee, I don't know. Maybe because I think what's going on with Iraq is more important? Maybe because I think al-Qaeda and terrorism are more important? Maybe because the looming structural deficits we face due Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are more important? Maybe because I think the 50 million Americans who have no health insurance are more important? Maybe because global warming and other ecological issues are more important (and may render other issues moot)?
Maybe for all those reasons?
Cecile, these horses are not bred for slaughter, at least if Andrew Cohen's previous blog posts are to be believed. They are horses that are finished being used for whatever purpose they had before. What is not clear to me is what, exactly, Mr. Cohen expects to happen to these horses now that that we will be accumulating an additional 100,000 horses a year in this country?
Christine, if you were interested in ecological well being, you would be completely FOR getting rid of all horses on this continent. They are not native and, therefore, displace other animals. When people own horses, they must acquire a significant amount of land that must be cleared for horses to graze on. This is land that, otherwise, could be left as more natural habitats for native animals that live here. One of the major ecological problems in this country is the disappearance of "wilderness" -- that is, those areas that we do not touch, that we just leave alone, uncleared and allowed to grow as it pleases. Whether horses are slaughtered is neither here nor there when it comes to ecological well being.
I've noticed a tendency in you pro-horse people to start connecting the slaughter of horses with all sorts of things that are, in reality, unrelated. Soon, Christine, you'll start telling us how stopping the slaughter of horses will stop global warming and bring peace to the Middle East.
Please try to make your arguments logical and, above all else, based in reality.
Posted by: Ryan | January 23, 2007 01:54 PM
Bottom line: If you consume meat for dinner, you should try to eat the next horse you see.
Posted by: Dave | January 23, 2007 03:10 PM
I also like the fact that Mr. Cohen refers to the people he disagrees with "the bad guys". Apparently, Mr. Cohen likes the George Bush view of the world: You're either with us or against us. And, if you're against us, you're a bad guy. You're probably also unpatriotic and trying to help the terrorists, to boot.
Posted by: Ryan | January 23, 2007 04:25 PM
It was clear from your initial post, Ryan, that you weren't anti-slaughter. Now, however, we can see that you're actually anti-horse! Good grief.
Though domesticated horses were indeed introduced to this continent by "explorers" in the fifteenth century, is a commonly accepted scientific fact that horses originally evolved in the Americas. (For reasons unknown, the native horses died out thousands of years before the Europeans arrived.)
You argue that horses should not have been re-introduced to North America. But might I remind you that it has been the two-footed, not four-footed, interlopers who have wreaked the most havoc-- ecological, environmental, and otherwise-- in North America over the past 600 years.
No one here is asserting that horse slaughter is worse than (or linked to) the Iraq war or global warming or terrorism or the situation in the Middle East. Mr. Cohen writes a blog about the law, and it's his privilege to write about any issues that happen to grab his attention-- just as it's our privilege to respond. Together it makes for interesting reading and provocative dialogue, and, Ryan, you in particular deserve credit for keeping it lively.
Posted by: Christine | January 23, 2007 08:04 PM
Andrew Cohen would make an exemplar 1940s Republican. Defending the enviroment and animals, common-sense, bipartisan, and no nonsense. Don't fret about Ryan. He is too Generation X.
Posted by: Oh to have a Blog | January 23, 2007 08:17 PM
I suppose it's a bit less trivial for the horses.
Posted by: Al | January 25, 2007 04:54 PM
Horses are not bred here in America to be eaten. Let those foreigners eat their own d**n Horses.They are companion animals to us like our dogs and cats. To compare Horses to cattle is like comparing the Bald Eagle with a pigeon.The Horses that are being bought at auctions are not used up Horses, they are big beautiful Horses. I have raised money to purchase many of them. The USDA states that in 2006 over 90% of Horses that were slaughtered at the three FOREIGN OWNED slaughter plants were from good to great condition. Isn't it funny that the American Quarter Horse Association is against the slaughter ban when the list of slaughtered Horses in 2006 were sorted by breed and the Quarter Horses were on top? Owners will finally be forced to take responsibility for their animals after the ban passes instead of treating Horses like garbage and getting paid to do it. And lastly 100,000 much wanted Horses were inhumanely killed last year, that's less than 1% of the total Horse population here in the USA. A number easily absorbed when the ban passes.
Posted by: Carrie | January 26, 2007 02:20 AM
But to many in this country, they are not companion animals any more than cattle. While horses may be prettier, in the end, they are livestock and to make them "companion animals" would introduce a ton of problemns to the already burdened agriculture industry.
Unwanted cats and dogs are tough to deal with, unwanted horses are impossible to deal with. Making slaughter illegal will not decrease horse breeding, it will just introduce a new problem of lame, sicly horses who will starve to death in a field.
Posted by: Kevin | January 26, 2007 02:47 PM
I don't understand something, Carrie.
On the one hand, you call horses "companion animals". On the other, you say that these horses that are slaughtered are purchased at auction. Those two ideas are incongruent. If someone considers their horse to be a companion animal, he/she would not sell it at auction. I consider my rabbit a "companion animal" and I assure you I would never sell my rabbit at auction.
To me, it sounds as though YOU (and some others) consider horses companion animals, but other people (those selling the horses at auction) do not. Certainly, even if one were forced to get rid of your companion animal, you would ensure that it would go to a nice home where it would be treated like a companion animal -- i.e. you wouldn't sell it.
Anyway, the fact that there is a market for all this horse-selling, horse-buying, and horse slaughtering strongly suggests that not all horse owners agree with you, Carrie. It would be nice if you could make your argument logical and congruent.
Posted by: Ryan | January 26, 2007 03:42 PM
Pretty has nothing to do with it Kevin, I will say it one more time.HORSES ARE NOT BRED HERE IN AMERICA TO BE EATEN. And the inhumane way they are transporting them and killing them is a disgrace. Kevin I dare you to go to horsekillers.com and watch the horror show for yourself. People can humanely euthanize there Horses if they no longer want them. At the auctions there are people that don't even know that Kill Buyers are there. One man I told took his 2 Horses back home. He did not want his Horses to be bought by these men and killed in a slaughter house. MANY HORSES are bought at auction and the owners don't ever know their Horse is going to slaughter. That stinks. It's a sneaky bunch of foreigners that own the 3 slaughter houses. THEY are burdens on the towns they are in, they break laws, owe fines and will be shut down one way or another. There will always be people who abuse their Horses and when the ban passes and it will pass, ANY Horse owner that abuses their Horse will finally pay the price for doing it instead of getting paid to do it. The burden that you call it Kevin of having an unwanted Horse is called responsibilty. Would it be OK to take our unwanted Cats & Dogs to a slaughter plant here in America and ship the meat over to Asia? I don't think so.
I can sum this complicated issue up in 4 words. NO NEED JUST GREED.
Posted by: Carrie | January 26, 2007 04:06 PM
Ryan, I have a dear friend who had to sell her Horse Pi that she loved very much because she was going away to school. She sold Pi to a man she knew. She ran into him a while after and asked about Pi. He said he longer wanted her and sold her to slaughter. My friend was devastated to say the least and that lead her to starting her Horse Rescue where I am one of the Directors. Many wonderful Horses are sold at auctions that were once someones friend and longtime companion. These Horses are being purchased by Kill Buyers without many owners knowing. Many Americans don't even know that Horse slaughter houses exist. We plan on educating people on what the real facts are.
Posted by: Carrie | January 26, 2007 04:33 PM
Why would you sell your horse? I'm baffled by this. I wouldn't sell my dog. This doesn't sound like a true companion animal to me.
Plus, I still don't understand why you think your desire to have horses as companion animals should allow you to impose that on everyone else in this country and why that desire means that other people can't buy horses to be slaughtered. It's as if your emotional attachment to horses overrides any sense of principle on this matter. Frankly, if people want to horse meat, why should I stop them? What gives me (or you, for that matter) the right to say no? And don't bring up the whole "foreigners" aspect of it. That just makes your argument xenophobic. So long as I believe that eating animals is OK (which most Americans do), I see no reason why I should stop the horse meat industry, regardless of where the meat is going.
I know people who've had pigs as "companion animals". Should we stop slaughtering pigs? What about cows? Chickens? Fish? Why in the world are you limiting this to horses? This whole thing makes no sense to me. There's no rhyme or reason to this.
Posted by: Ryan | January 26, 2007 06:47 PM
The fate of 100,000 unwanted horses turned into food each year pales in comparison with the horror of millions of carrots wantonly slaughtered to meet the perverse vegetarian agenda. Carrots are cute. Carrots are a cheery orange color that brings a smile to everyone who sees them.
Just because carrots are quiet and calm and inoffensive doesn't mean that they are without feelings. Anyone who will simply take the time to listen can hear them screaming as they are literally pulled from their safe cozy homes by their tender root-hairs. I know I do.
The poor things then have their skin peeled off; they are chopped into bits, boiled and frozen, only to be unceremoniously dumped into the garbage when little Timmy and Sally refuse to eat them. What a sad, horrible waste of carrot potential.
Christine, Cecile, Carrie, Andrew - please don't let this inhumane behavior continue. Join with me, SAVE THE CARROTS, and do it in all caps so the other posters can hear us.
PS: Carrie, do you know where I can get my hands on some of those slaughtered cats and dogs? Nothing better in a stir-fry.
Posted by: | January 26, 2007 09:04 PM
Credit for SAVE THE CARROTS belongs to me.
Posted by: andyhood | January 26, 2007 09:07 PM
Andy can continue to cry over his carrots and Ryan, Kevin, Dave & the other BAD GUYS out there, you are just blind to the cruelty and the lies. You are a small majority and you will not stop the Slaughter Ban from passing and then America's Horses will be safe.
Posted by: Carrie | January 26, 2007 11:47 PM
Dear sweet Carrie. How will they be safe? Who will care for them? 100,000 unwanted horses per year. Are you going to take them? Or will they be left to be neglected, to slowly starve? Horses are only different for you from other livestock because you choose to see them that way. Other people see them as working animals, like oxen or donkeys or camels. Still other people see them as a source of food, like cows or pigs or sheep. There is nothing intrinsic about horses that makes them special - you just see them that way. If you are going to eliminate the one existing avenue for disposition of 100,000 large animals per year, what is your plan to take care of them? I sincerely hope it is something both certain and humane, because there are worse ways to die than in a slaughterhouse.
Posted by: | January 27, 2007 12:31 AM
Whoops, I did it again
Posted by: andyhood | January 27, 2007 12:32 AM
Dear CarrotHead,
Most Americans don't think of eating Horses.And you asked me who will save them? From what? The owners that own them are responsible for them. Less than 1% of the Horse population was slaughtered last year and that number will be easily absorbed. Yes, many are working animals, I have outbid Kill Buyers and saved many Race Horses at auctions where they are tossed aside like garbage after they stop winning. Kentucky Derby winner Ferdinand was slaughtered instead of being retired somewhere and in my opinion that's like eating Babe Ruth! There's not just one existing ave for Horses after owners no longer want them and you know that. Owners will have to step up to the plate and spend a few dollars and humanely euthanize their Horses. They will soon be forced to. There's not going to be starving Horses on every corner, that BULL ! And if there are than the owners will go to jail for it !
Posted by: Carrie | January 27, 2007 02:16 AM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2007/01/the_bad_guys_lose_big_on_horse.html
The Bad Guys Lose Big on Horse Slaughter
Never mind the lacquered platitudes that will swallow up tonight's State of the Union speech. Never mind the flood of hubristic presidential candidates starting to run a political race no one is interested in following. Never mind even the start of the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial, the results of which will, in the end, impact the lives of no one but Libby, his family, and the massive legal entourages that have sprung up around the case. The big legal news over the past week is and was a decision last week by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that could finally spell the end of two of the nation's three brutal slaughterhouses whose owners are responsible each year for the inhumane deaths of about 100,000 American horses each year.
The conservative federal appeals court ruled unanimously that a 1949 Texas law prohibits the slaughter of horses for human consumption overseas, a position that had been challenged by Beltex Corporation and Dallas Crown, Inc., two companies operating slaughterhouses in the Lone Star State. The companies had argued that federal regulations trumped the state law. Wrong. And even an attorney for the companies told the Dallas Morning News that he doubts that the U.S Supreme Court will take the case.
If the ruling stands, Texas prosecutors will be free to go after the owners and operators of these awful places. And if and when they do there will be only a single horse slaughterhouse left in the country, in Illinois. And the good news doesn't stop there. New legislation was introduced last week in Congress to impose a federal ban on the practice. Last year, a similiar measure made it through the House of Representatives but then stalled in the Senate. New Congress. New term. New momentum. It's time to finally end this phase of our country's corporate life. Here's how the 5th Circuit put it and I could not say it any better: "The lone cowboy riding his horse on a Texas trail is a cinematic icon... Not once in memory did the cowboy eat his horse...."
By Andrew Cohen | January 23, 2007; 9:15 AM ET
Previous: One Zany Day in the Life of the War on Terror | Next: Libby, Libby, Libby, on the Label, Label, Label
Comments
Please email us to report offensive comments.
Maybe this blog should be re-titled the "Horse Slaughter Blog" or perhaps just the "Obsessed with Relatively Trivial Issues Blog".
Posted by: Ryan | January 23, 2007 10:18 AM
The Libby trial is an obstruction of justice case directly related to the outing of a CIA agent, the complaint was brought at the request of the Justice department, and you feel it will not have far reaching consequences??
Posted by: frances | January 23, 2007 10:56 AM
The Bush administration and the all-about-money Republicans have worked diligently to categorize many issues, this included, as "relatively trivial." I applaud Andrew for celebrating this victory that is perhaps in some minds minor, but that offers hope to the rest of us who remain concerned about ecological well being, inhumane practices against people and animals, and the undeniable fact that today in this country deep-pocketed, lobbying-savvy businesses too often make the rules.
Posted by: Christine | January 23, 2007 12:05 PM
I also, applaud Mr. Cohen for bringing this story to light.
What is trivial about killing 100,000 horses annually? I believe more people would support legisation to end this grisly practice if they knew about it. Where do these horses come from, anyway? Are they bred just for slaughter?
And I thought puppy mills were bad!
Posted by: Cecile Batchelor | January 23, 2007 01:11 PM
Let's see. How could the consumption of horse meat be trivial? Gee, I don't know. Maybe because I think what's going on with Iraq is more important? Maybe because I think al-Qaeda and terrorism are more important? Maybe because the looming structural deficits we face due Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are more important? Maybe because I think the 50 million Americans who have no health insurance are more important? Maybe because global warming and other ecological issues are more important (and may render other issues moot)?
Maybe for all those reasons?
Cecile, these horses are not bred for slaughter, at least if Andrew Cohen's previous blog posts are to be believed. They are horses that are finished being used for whatever purpose they had before. What is not clear to me is what, exactly, Mr. Cohen expects to happen to these horses now that that we will be accumulating an additional 100,000 horses a year in this country?
Christine, if you were interested in ecological well being, you would be completely FOR getting rid of all horses on this continent. They are not native and, therefore, displace other animals. When people own horses, they must acquire a significant amount of land that must be cleared for horses to graze on. This is land that, otherwise, could be left as more natural habitats for native animals that live here. One of the major ecological problems in this country is the disappearance of "wilderness" -- that is, those areas that we do not touch, that we just leave alone, uncleared and allowed to grow as it pleases. Whether horses are slaughtered is neither here nor there when it comes to ecological well being.
I've noticed a tendency in you pro-horse people to start connecting the slaughter of horses with all sorts of things that are, in reality, unrelated. Soon, Christine, you'll start telling us how stopping the slaughter of horses will stop global warming and bring peace to the Middle East.
Please try to make your arguments logical and, above all else, based in reality.
Posted by: Ryan | January 23, 2007 01:54 PM
Bottom line: If you consume meat for dinner, you should try to eat the next horse you see.
Posted by: Dave | January 23, 2007 03:10 PM
I also like the fact that Mr. Cohen refers to the people he disagrees with "the bad guys". Apparently, Mr. Cohen likes the George Bush view of the world: You're either with us or against us. And, if you're against us, you're a bad guy. You're probably also unpatriotic and trying to help the terrorists, to boot.
Posted by: Ryan | January 23, 2007 04:25 PM
It was clear from your initial post, Ryan, that you weren't anti-slaughter. Now, however, we can see that you're actually anti-horse! Good grief.
Though domesticated horses were indeed introduced to this continent by "explorers" in the fifteenth century, is a commonly accepted scientific fact that horses originally evolved in the Americas. (For reasons unknown, the native horses died out thousands of years before the Europeans arrived.)
You argue that horses should not have been re-introduced to North America. But might I remind you that it has been the two-footed, not four-footed, interlopers who have wreaked the most havoc-- ecological, environmental, and otherwise-- in North America over the past 600 years.
No one here is asserting that horse slaughter is worse than (or linked to) the Iraq war or global warming or terrorism or the situation in the Middle East. Mr. Cohen writes a blog about the law, and it's his privilege to write about any issues that happen to grab his attention-- just as it's our privilege to respond. Together it makes for interesting reading and provocative dialogue, and, Ryan, you in particular deserve credit for keeping it lively.
Posted by: Christine | January 23, 2007 08:04 PM
Andrew Cohen would make an exemplar 1940s Republican. Defending the enviroment and animals, common-sense, bipartisan, and no nonsense. Don't fret about Ryan. He is too Generation X.
Posted by: Oh to have a Blog | January 23, 2007 08:17 PM
I suppose it's a bit less trivial for the horses.
Posted by: Al | January 25, 2007 04:54 PM
Horses are not bred here in America to be eaten. Let those foreigners eat their own d**n Horses.They are companion animals to us like our dogs and cats. To compare Horses to cattle is like comparing the Bald Eagle with a pigeon.The Horses that are being bought at auctions are not used up Horses, they are big beautiful Horses. I have raised money to purchase many of them. The USDA states that in 2006 over 90% of Horses that were slaughtered at the three FOREIGN OWNED slaughter plants were from good to great condition. Isn't it funny that the American Quarter Horse Association is against the slaughter ban when the list of slaughtered Horses in 2006 were sorted by breed and the Quarter Horses were on top? Owners will finally be forced to take responsibility for their animals after the ban passes instead of treating Horses like garbage and getting paid to do it. And lastly 100,000 much wanted Horses were inhumanely killed last year, that's less than 1% of the total Horse population here in the USA. A number easily absorbed when the ban passes.
Posted by: Carrie | January 26, 2007 02:20 AM
But to many in this country, they are not companion animals any more than cattle. While horses may be prettier, in the end, they are livestock and to make them "companion animals" would introduce a ton of problemns to the already burdened agriculture industry.
Unwanted cats and dogs are tough to deal with, unwanted horses are impossible to deal with. Making slaughter illegal will not decrease horse breeding, it will just introduce a new problem of lame, sicly horses who will starve to death in a field.
Posted by: Kevin | January 26, 2007 02:47 PM
I don't understand something, Carrie.
On the one hand, you call horses "companion animals". On the other, you say that these horses that are slaughtered are purchased at auction. Those two ideas are incongruent. If someone considers their horse to be a companion animal, he/she would not sell it at auction. I consider my rabbit a "companion animal" and I assure you I would never sell my rabbit at auction.
To me, it sounds as though YOU (and some others) consider horses companion animals, but other people (those selling the horses at auction) do not. Certainly, even if one were forced to get rid of your companion animal, you would ensure that it would go to a nice home where it would be treated like a companion animal -- i.e. you wouldn't sell it.
Anyway, the fact that there is a market for all this horse-selling, horse-buying, and horse slaughtering strongly suggests that not all horse owners agree with you, Carrie. It would be nice if you could make your argument logical and congruent.
Posted by: Ryan | January 26, 2007 03:42 PM
Pretty has nothing to do with it Kevin, I will say it one more time.HORSES ARE NOT BRED HERE IN AMERICA TO BE EATEN. And the inhumane way they are transporting them and killing them is a disgrace. Kevin I dare you to go to horsekillers.com and watch the horror show for yourself. People can humanely euthanize there Horses if they no longer want them. At the auctions there are people that don't even know that Kill Buyers are there. One man I told took his 2 Horses back home. He did not want his Horses to be bought by these men and killed in a slaughter house. MANY HORSES are bought at auction and the owners don't ever know their Horse is going to slaughter. That stinks. It's a sneaky bunch of foreigners that own the 3 slaughter houses. THEY are burdens on the towns they are in, they break laws, owe fines and will be shut down one way or another. There will always be people who abuse their Horses and when the ban passes and it will pass, ANY Horse owner that abuses their Horse will finally pay the price for doing it instead of getting paid to do it. The burden that you call it Kevin of having an unwanted Horse is called responsibilty. Would it be OK to take our unwanted Cats & Dogs to a slaughter plant here in America and ship the meat over to Asia? I don't think so.
I can sum this complicated issue up in 4 words. NO NEED JUST GREED.
Posted by: Carrie | January 26, 2007 04:06 PM
Ryan, I have a dear friend who had to sell her Horse Pi that she loved very much because she was going away to school. She sold Pi to a man she knew. She ran into him a while after and asked about Pi. He said he longer wanted her and sold her to slaughter. My friend was devastated to say the least and that lead her to starting her Horse Rescue where I am one of the Directors. Many wonderful Horses are sold at auctions that were once someones friend and longtime companion. These Horses are being purchased by Kill Buyers without many owners knowing. Many Americans don't even know that Horse slaughter houses exist. We plan on educating people on what the real facts are.
Posted by: Carrie | January 26, 2007 04:33 PM
Why would you sell your horse? I'm baffled by this. I wouldn't sell my dog. This doesn't sound like a true companion animal to me.
Plus, I still don't understand why you think your desire to have horses as companion animals should allow you to impose that on everyone else in this country and why that desire means that other people can't buy horses to be slaughtered. It's as if your emotional attachment to horses overrides any sense of principle on this matter. Frankly, if people want to horse meat, why should I stop them? What gives me (or you, for that matter) the right to say no? And don't bring up the whole "foreigners" aspect of it. That just makes your argument xenophobic. So long as I believe that eating animals is OK (which most Americans do), I see no reason why I should stop the horse meat industry, regardless of where the meat is going.
I know people who've had pigs as "companion animals". Should we stop slaughtering pigs? What about cows? Chickens? Fish? Why in the world are you limiting this to horses? This whole thing makes no sense to me. There's no rhyme or reason to this.
Posted by: Ryan | January 26, 2007 06:47 PM
The fate of 100,000 unwanted horses turned into food each year pales in comparison with the horror of millions of carrots wantonly slaughtered to meet the perverse vegetarian agenda. Carrots are cute. Carrots are a cheery orange color that brings a smile to everyone who sees them.
Just because carrots are quiet and calm and inoffensive doesn't mean that they are without feelings. Anyone who will simply take the time to listen can hear them screaming as they are literally pulled from their safe cozy homes by their tender root-hairs. I know I do.
The poor things then have their skin peeled off; they are chopped into bits, boiled and frozen, only to be unceremoniously dumped into the garbage when little Timmy and Sally refuse to eat them. What a sad, horrible waste of carrot potential.
Christine, Cecile, Carrie, Andrew - please don't let this inhumane behavior continue. Join with me, SAVE THE CARROTS, and do it in all caps so the other posters can hear us.
PS: Carrie, do you know where I can get my hands on some of those slaughtered cats and dogs? Nothing better in a stir-fry.
Posted by: | January 26, 2007 09:04 PM
Credit for SAVE THE CARROTS belongs to me.
Posted by: andyhood | January 26, 2007 09:07 PM
Andy can continue to cry over his carrots and Ryan, Kevin, Dave & the other BAD GUYS out there, you are just blind to the cruelty and the lies. You are a small majority and you will not stop the Slaughter Ban from passing and then America's Horses will be safe.
Posted by: Carrie | January 26, 2007 11:47 PM
Dear sweet Carrie. How will they be safe? Who will care for them? 100,000 unwanted horses per year. Are you going to take them? Or will they be left to be neglected, to slowly starve? Horses are only different for you from other livestock because you choose to see them that way. Other people see them as working animals, like oxen or donkeys or camels. Still other people see them as a source of food, like cows or pigs or sheep. There is nothing intrinsic about horses that makes them special - you just see them that way. If you are going to eliminate the one existing avenue for disposition of 100,000 large animals per year, what is your plan to take care of them? I sincerely hope it is something both certain and humane, because there are worse ways to die than in a slaughterhouse.
Posted by: | January 27, 2007 12:31 AM
Whoops, I did it again
Posted by: andyhood | January 27, 2007 12:32 AM
Dear CarrotHead,
Most Americans don't think of eating Horses.And you asked me who will save them? From what? The owners that own them are responsible for them. Less than 1% of the Horse population was slaughtered last year and that number will be easily absorbed. Yes, many are working animals, I have outbid Kill Buyers and saved many Race Horses at auctions where they are tossed aside like garbage after they stop winning. Kentucky Derby winner Ferdinand was slaughtered instead of being retired somewhere and in my opinion that's like eating Babe Ruth! There's not just one existing ave for Horses after owners no longer want them and you know that. Owners will have to step up to the plate and spend a few dollars and humanely euthanize their Horses. They will soon be forced to. There's not going to be starving Horses on every corner, that BULL ! And if there are than the owners will go to jail for it !
Posted by: Carrie | January 27, 2007 02:16 AM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.