Hey Karen and Scott,

You probably don’t recognize me by name, but I am a member of Rising Riders 4-H, and we were out last Saturday grooming the horses, which was a blast btw, but that isn’t the reason I’m replying…I am currently a freshman at UW-River Falls, and I am majoring in Equine Management, and this semester I have an Environmental Studies class, and today, since our teacher had a meeting that conflicted with our class time, she canceled class and gave us an assignment instead. The assignment was to go onto the UW’s d2l system and read two articles, both of which I was excited to see were on my favorite subject..horses…and then we were to post our opinions on them…below are copies of the articles which you don’t have to read, but rather just scan so you can see what I’m talking about later on…I apologize for this being so long...

Putting Other Animals on the Pill: Should We, or Shouldn’t We?

by Daniel Hammer | Spring 2006

Friends of Animals has enabled the neutering of over two million cats and dogs — domestic animals that humans brought into society as dependent beings. Does this imply that it’s ethically justifiable to control the births and populations of animals living independently of us?^[1] Here, Daniel Hammer argues that birth control of naturally existing populations falls short of respecting their basic interests.

Over the last quarter-century, advocates have come to view reproductive control as a practical, non-lethal way to manage free-living animals. It’s not often discussed in action alerts, except when offered as an immediate way to avoid killing. For example, in areas where hunting is debated, or where great numbers of animals are being hit by cars, advocates may propose, or even insist, that officials consider reproductive control as a solution.

If the individuals involved in pilot reproductive control projects were from particular human populations, questions would be asked about the rights of the community being invasively controlled. Regarding nonhuman animals, though, this discussion hasn’t emerged. Reproductive control is, for the most part, considered a benign intervention. Animal experimenters Jay F. Kirkpatrick and Allen T. Rutberg insist: “Not only is this ethically defensible, but (more to the point) it is also widespread, and we do not see this consensus changing in our lifetime.”^[2]

When communities perceive conflicts between the animals around them and their own needs and desires, we, the human beings who make decisions, have a responsibility to ensure that our proposed answers reflect our values.^[3] Can we claim to value the “intrinsic rights of all wild creatures to live out their lives unmanipulated by humans,” as Kirkpatrick and Rutberg put it, but, “as a practical matter,” give into “public demands that action be taken when public health, safety, or subsistence are threatened by wildlife”?^[4]

If we think other animals have intrinsic rights — interests that are due serious moral consideration — then public demands do not settle the matter. Rights can be inconvenient, yes. But that’s when they count. The point of rights is to protect individuals against intrusions that might be convenient to others. Here, then, is an analysis of this oft-overlooked issue, beginning with a review of its factual background and concluding with some thoughts on the need for a more enlightened advocacy when it comes to respecting the basic rights of free-living individuals.

Reproductive Control: What’s Available

A variety of reproductive controls exist as an alternative to lethal control over free-living animals. They include sterilization, contraception, and contragestation.

Sterilization

Sterilization is usually surgical and permanent. In 1997, the Alaska Board of Game authorized the experimental sterilization of the alpha pairs in 15 wolf groups with territory in the Fortymile region of central Alaska. Scientists cut and plugged the wolves’ reproductive tubes. The other group members were relocated or killed off under the wolf-control scheme in the interest of providing human hunters greater opportunities to kill caribou.^[5] In 2004, state biologist Jeff Gross touted the scheme as “a real viable management option.” Gross exclaimed, “It’s shown it’s got some longevity. It really is a cost-effective means to reduce the numbers in the long run.”^[6]

The idea wasn’t a new one. It’s based on similar projects in Minnesota and the Yukon. The Yukon, which pioneered it, is now experimenting with immunocontraception. ^[7]

Immunocontraception

Immunocontraception is one of the newest and most fashionable forms of reproductive control for free-living animals.^[8]

Immunocontraception is now being tested on deer, elephants, bears and birds, and, most of all, on free-living horses. Federal legislation designed to protect the lives of horses on public lands led the Bureau of Land Management be one of the first agencies to back experiments contraception as a way to continue aggressive management practices.

In 1977, the BLM offered $300,000 for experiments, led by Jay Kirkpatrick, to test the effects of large doses of testosterone in stallions. Infertility was established, but the public backlash over the treatment of horses doomed the experiment.

In 1985, the BLM allocated $750,000 for more experiments. Kirkpatrick’s team lost out to an experiment on surgically implanting steroids in mares. So the team applied to the National Park Service for clearance to continue testosterone experiments on the stallions of the Assateague Island National Seashore, off the coast of Maryland. Here again, the experiments showed contraceptive promise, but Kirkpatrick noted that “the stresses for the animals were significant.” There were further questions as well. Kirkpatrick added, “At this point, no one had even considered the passage of the drugs through the food chain… Nor did anyone consider the long-term pathologies associated with these hormones.” ^[9]

Following the testosterone experiments, Kirkpatrick’s research team joined with researchers at the University of California (UC-Davis) to subject the Assateague horses to a study of the immunocontraceptive porcine zona pellucida, or PZP. After the researchers published their findings in 1990, the immunocontraceptive idea found support in several key sectors, from the National Institutes of Health to the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. Starting in 1991, with the support of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, “a large sum of money — perhaps a million dollars — was appropriated to the BLM over the next ten years for the development if a one-inoculation vaccine that would have contraceptive effects for two to three years.”^[10]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved the drug, but it has granted Kirkpatrick an Investigational New Animal Drug exemption to use PZP on deer, free-living horses and zoo animals — a permission which Kirkpatrick turned over to a sponsorship by the Humane Society of the United States.^[11] In 1992, the Humane Society and the BLM signed a Memorandum of Agreement to cosponsor the first immunocontraception experiments using PZP in the free-living horses of the west. As Jay Kirkpatrick explained it, “The HSUS provided [the BLM] with the political cover needed to pursue contraception after the humane catastrophe of the 1980s steroid studies.”^[12] In November 2005, HSUS announced a new Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate on “further development and wider use of contraception in wild horse populations.”^[13]

Contragestatives

Also in November 2005, the federal Environmental Protection Agency approved registration of the pesticide OvoControl-G^[14], a nicarbazin-based chemical used on Canada geese. A contragestative, it prevents gestation after conception has already taken place. According to the EPA, the registration of OvoControl-G was strongly supported by the Humane Society of the United States, as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Wildlife Research Center, which conducted field experiments with the chemical.

In addition to promoting PZP and nicarbazin, the U.S. Humane Society has been a strong proponent of egg addling as a contragestative method for controlling Canadian geese and other wild birds. The new chemical means, in the Humane Society’s view, “In a sense, the egg is addled inside the goose.”^[15]

For its part, the National Wildlife Research Center experiments extensively on the reproductive control of free-living animals, applying SpaVac and other hormone-based immunocontraceptives primarily on deer, but also developing such drugs for other animals. Then there is DiazaCon, a cholesterol reducer that blocks hormones and is being developed to control small birds and mammals such as monk parakeets and prairie dogs.

Researchers, Control Thyselves

Let’s return to the statement of researchers Kirkpatrick and Rutberg: “The public demands that action be taken when public health, safety, or subsistence are threatened by wildlife. Not only is this ethically defensible, but (more to the point) it is also widespread, and we do not see this consensus changing in our lifetime.”^[16]

While the Humane Society supports the manipulation of horses and geese, these animals pose no serious conflicts. Along with Kirkpatrick and Rutberg, the Humane Society takes for granted the need to control animals, so that it’s ethically defensible to override the interests of nonhuman animals wherever humans perceive a conflict. Thus, horses should be rendered infertile where their presence interferes with cattle ranchers — and what threat exists there, other than the “health” of the ranchers’ profit? The gestation of goose eggs can be hindered when the birds’ presence annoys golfers or the landscapers at business parks. Bears are deemed too numerous for New Jersey residents’ risk-averse views; the Humane Society has, therefore, been conducting contraceptive experiments on bears at a Jackson, NJ amusement park. This discounts the interests of free-living animals to experience life on their own terms. And it's aligned with the prevailing wildlife management view, a view imbedded in the structure of state and federal agencies: that wildlife should be managed for the use, benefit and enjoyment of people. This view is undeniably widespread; however, contrary to what Kirkpatrick and Rutberg state, appealing to the status quo fails to make reproductive control ethically defensible.

Terms like “overabundant” and “overpopulation” are liberally applied wherever free-living animals are deemed inconvenient. The underlying message is that, if not controlled, free-living animals will take over. This both reflects and supports the systematic acceptance of control, and treats all of nature as a zoo. By focusing on questions such as how will we or where will we use reproductive controls, proponents are able to avoid confronting the ethical question: the question of will we or won’t we accept the systematic manipulation of free-living animals.^[17] This is the precise question that Kirkpatrick’s team ruled out; deciding that public demands automatically answered it. In reality, the public has never seriously thought about the issue, mainly because many of the animals’ advocates have taken control for granted.

The policies of the Humane Society of the United States, like those of the agriculture department’s Wildlife Services and other management agencies, dismiss the intrinsic interests of free-living animals. For the avoidance of death is not the only interest animals have at stake. The quality of life, including the opportunity to enjoy that life on nature’s terms and not our terms, is, from an animal rights perspective, just as significant as the opportunity to experience life itself.

What’s more, reproductive controls and other invasive manipulations disregard free-living animals’ vital interests simply to gratify human profit or convenience. And increasingly they reinforce the idea that nature poses problems, warranting pharmaceutical solutions. An enlightened advocacy will have to start asking basic questions about that idea. Let’s begin at the beginning: Will we or won’t we accept the systematic manipulation of free-living animals?

Copyright © 2005 Friends of Animals, all rights reserved.

House OKs bill to end horse slaughtering
By Richard Clough
Washington Bureau
Published September 8, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Riding a broad wave of bipartisan support, the House on Thursday approved a bill to ban the slaughter of horses in the U.S. for human consumption.

The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, which still awaits a vote in the Senate, passed 263-146, setting the stage for the possible elimination of an industry Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) called "a grossly inhumane business.

"This whole slaughtering process is an illicit, concealed, inhumane process as it relates to horses," said Whitfield, one of the bill's co-sponsors and its most vocal champion on the House floor.

The three horse slaughterhouses in the United States--one in DeKalb and two in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area--are foreign-owned and export most of their meat to Europe and Japan. About 90,000 horses were slaughtered in the U.S. last year.

In a culture where the consumption of horse meat is generally considered taboo, Americans by and large support measures to ban the slaughter of horses for human food. For many Americans, horses represent cowboys and the Wild West, and this sentimentality has helped keep horse meat off Americans' dinner tables.

Foes: Ban could hurt horses

The bill became a flash point for activists on both sides. Supporters of the bill called for an end to what they consider the cruel practice of horse slaughtering; opponents said closing the nation's abattoirs would subject thousands of unwanted horses to uncertain futures.

Former Texas Rep. Charles Stenholm, representing more than 200 organizations opposed to the bill, many of them agricultural groups, said the legislation would close the slaughterhouses without giving consideration to the fate of the unwanted horses that otherwise would have been slaughtered.

"What are you going to do with 90,000 unwanted horses? Who's going to provide for their care?" asked Stenholm, who was the top-ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee until 2004. "It's not in the best interest of the horses. There is nothing in the bill that provides for the humane treatments of horses."

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns echoed those concerns Wednesday in a letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Johanns wrote that passage would likely lead to "a reduction in the humane treatment of horses."

Goodlatte's committee voted 37-3 against the bill and said much of the bill's support was for the wrong reasons.

"There's no doubt in anyone's mind that this is an emotionally charged issue," he said. "But passion, when left unchecked, can have negative consequences. That's exactly the situation we find ourselves in today. The consequences of this legislation are far-reaching and stand to jeopardize the welfare of America's horse population."

Slaughter opponents rally

The bill's supporters say unwanted horses could be redirected to horse rescue facilities, but Goodlatte and others have said an influx of horses--possibly as many as the 90,000 now slaughtered annually--would likely overburden existing facilities, which now can accommodate only about 6,000 horses.

But the movement to ban horse slaughtering has grown as Whitfield and another of the bill's sponsors, Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), corralled more than 200 other House members as co-sponsors. And outside Washington, celebrities from actress Bo Derek to country singer Willie Nelson, have pressed for the slaughter ban.

Those who support the ban maintain that because horses are raised for sport, recreation and companionship and not for eating, they should not be killed and processed for food.

Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director and a lobbyist for the Society for Animal Protective Legislation, said that despite Department of Agriculture oversight, horse slaughtering is inherently inhumane and current measures cannot protect the animals.

"We're looking at an industry that, beginning to end, is extremely cruel," Heyde said.

Vote's timing questioned

The legislative push to ban horse slaughtering has been in the works for several years. But even Thursday, numerous lawmakers, including some supporters of the ban, criticized the House leaders' decision to bring up the bill this week while other controversial issues, such as immigration reform, have not been scheduled for votes.

All but three members of the Illinois delegation voted for the horse-slaughtering ban. Republican Reps. Ray LaHood, Donald Manzullo and John Shimkus voted against the bill.

Though consumption of horse meat in the U.S. is uncommon, the sweet and tender meat is used for culinary purposes in other countries. A smoked horse-meat sausage called gustavskorv is popular in Sweden, and horse meat is sometimes served raw in Japan. In the U.S., horse meat is sometimes used as feed for zoo animals.

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

As for my response to these two articles, I had a lot to say, and some of it was random, but here is what I posted on the discussion:

As an Animal Science Major, equine emphasis, i have been aware of this issue for about 3 years, and i even did an essay on the slaughtering of horses for human consumption a few years ago in my high school animal science class. Personally, i am for the ban on the slaughtering of horses for human consumption for many reasons...
1) I think it is ironic that two of the slaughterhouses in the United States are in Texas, simply because Texas is the notorious cowboy/horse oriented state, and the state most associated with the American West... you would never see a texan sitting down to the table to eat a thick slab of cheval, which is the term used for horse meat in Europe, such things are unthinkable here in the United States; for the same reason, we do not eat our own dogs as some people do in third world countries, did you all know that people pay $15-$20 a pound for horse meat, and cheval is considered a delicacy in japan, france, and belgium... and kill buyers can buy a horse for less than $300...Horse meat constitutes only .001% of the total red meat, pork and poultry business nationally, so the ban on horse slaughter wouldn't have much of an impact on our economy...
2) if this ban were to pass, though it would ban the slaughter of horses, it most certainly does not prevent the euthanization of them, and in many cases, the growth of the horse population which is currently 6.9 million in the United States alone is due largely in part to irresponsible horse breeders themselves, those who see breeding horses merely as a way to profit instead of thinking of the horse itself, for instance the Pregnant Mare Urine (PMU) mares and foals where these horses' sole purpose is to provide estrogen used in the product Premarin, these horses are sold off as soon as they no longer continue to generate profit. (for more info about PMU horses visit: http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/equine_protection/the_facts_about_premarin.html) In addition if this ban were to pass, the increase in number of horses that are rendered or buried instead, this would represent an increase of less than 1% in the number of horses being disposed of in this manner already, which our infrastructure can certainly handle. However, not all horses would be rendered, but some could also be placed in sanctuaries, adoption agencies, or just kept instead of selling or euthanizing them. Disposal wouldn't be a problem considering there are rendering facilities and you could always cremate the carcass...
3) Many horses that are found at slaughterhouse auctions are standardbreds and thoroughbreds that are fresh off the track mostly young horses from 3 years of age up to 4 or 5, because at this age, racehorses' careers are considered over, and then they are either used for breeding purposes, or they are sold, more often than not at auctions to slaughter. Nothing is necessarily wrong with them, other than they just failed to meet the expectations and high standards of racing, and for this sole purpose were sent to auction, where they are bought at cheap prices by slaughterhouses...However, i do admit that there are some horses who are diseased, injured, old, starving, etc. but many are in perfect condition, and just need some one willing to spend the time and effort into retraining them under saddle...many excellent saddle horses have been found this way especially through adoption agencies
4) here are some statistics about the horse industry for those of you who are not familiar with it...the horse industry itself contributes $112.1 billion to the U.S. economy, provides the United States with 1.4 million jobs, and approx. 7.1 million Americans are involved some way or another in the horse industry, for more statistics go to this site: http://www.horsecouncil.org/ahcstats.html and for frequently asked questions regarding horse slaughter visit this site: http://www.saplonline.org/Legislation/ahspa/faq.htm
5) but perhaps the biggest reason i am against the slaughter of horses for human consumption is because i have been to a adoption agency myself...for anyone who is interested about an adoption agency in central wisconsin, there is one in pittsville called Midwest Horse Welfare Association Inc., and you can check it out at http://www.equineadoption.com/index.htm, and if you ever find yourself with some time on your hands, i suggest you take some time and look at everything they have on their website...the problem with many of these adoption agencies is that they are non-profit organizations, and they rely on donations and adoption fees to keep their program up and running... so i encourage everyone to stop at their website and feel free to contact them with any questions, they have seen many auctions first hand as well as the kill buyers that buy horses for slaughter...they would be happy to answer any of your questions regarding adoption and anything they know about slaughter

as for the wild horses problem...the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)is responsible for managing some 45,000 wild horses and burros on public lands. most of these herds are in the western states, such as parts of montana, nevada, oregon, california, wyoming, utah, arizona and colorado...many horses do die, or fall prey to mountain lions in those areas, and some even die of starvation. so nature has its own way of controlling the wild horse population...in addition, the BLM performs many roundups in which some horses are captured and sold/adopted or sent to sanctuaries...if anyone is interested in this process or just wild horses in general they can visit the bureau of land management's website: http://www.blm.gov/education/00_resources/articles/wild_bunch/wildbunch1.html, in addition, there is a place called the Black Hills Wild Horse Sanctuary, which had the nation's biggest herd of wild horses on about 11,000 acres of land...and it is about 13 miles away from Hot Springs, South Dakota, i have been there several times, and i thought it was great, and it is an excellent example of a wild horse herd that is managed not by the BLM, but of the Institute of Range and American Mustang...in a nutshell...cuz this is already way too long, the mares are kept in herds and quarter horse stallions are left out there to breed, and after the foals are born and old enough to leave, the colts and fillies are rounded up and sold at auction (with some restrictions of course)...this serves as both a fundraiser and population control and would eliminate the need for putting wild horses on the pill...why can't the BLM just do this for all their herds? instead of spending money that could be better put to use elsewhere...you can visit the sanctuary's homepage at: http://www.gwtc.net/~iram/

So far, mostly everyone in the class which is fairly large @170 students, all agree that putting wild horses on the pill is ridiculous, but as far as the horse slaughtering ban goes, many are not for it…so I just posted what I could think of right then, and it really hit home with me and reminded me of what you guys do there at MHWF, so I added that too…I hope you don’t mind…it seems to me that from reading what everyone else posted during that discussion, that they really aren’t aware that there are these kinds of organizations right here in Wisconsin or what they do, and many do not understand anything about the horse industry itself, or for that matter the whole slaughter process and what it entails…if you or anyone who reads this on your site has any other further suggestions or can think of anything that would help them understand what you guys do at MHWF and what you see when you go to auctions looking for horses, could you email me it so I could add it to what I have already said; I would really appreciate it, and please if you find time let me know if anyone actually does contact you guys with questions and might mention this assignment…Thank You so much…

Thanks so much Karen, that video will really help...i gotta admit it was very hard to watch...and i've seen steers butchered and i thought that was pretty gross and that was in person...but just watching this really takes the cake...it is completely and utterly disgusting and i think it will open up people's eyes to what really happens thanks again

karen i have a question, and maybe you won't know but why when the horses were let into that spot where they shot them with the bolt gun did it seem like the horses had such a hard time standing? o and that bolt gun sure knocks the horses out on the first try(yeah right) some of them took like 4 times to knock the horse out completly. that's horrible!

Out of curiousity, I did a search on cattle slaughter, to see how effective the bolt is on them, if it is typical practice to 'drop' an animal using 3 shots, as all but one in that 8 minute video did.  Here's what I found...

In the USA, a training video entitled, “Good Animal Handling for Beef Processors” and funded by the McDonald’s Corporation and the American Meat Institute Foundation states, “Excellent stunning is achieved when 99 per cent or more of the animals are rendered insensible with one shot. An acceptable level is rendering more than 95 per cent of the cattle in one shot. If more than 5 per cent of the cattle don’t reach insensibility after one shot, your plant should re-evaluate its stunning process and possibly training be provided to the stunning operator.” So, according to McDonalds, it is acceptable to mis-stun 1 in 20 cattle. (26)

In order to facilitate stunning accuracy, UK legislation states that cattle cannot be stunned unless they are ,”confined in a stunning pen which is in good working order” or the animal’s head is, “securely fastened in such a position as to enable it to be stunned without the infliction of avoidable excitement, pain or suffering”.

http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/std4.htm

So what you saw there is shameful for ANY kind of slaughter.  Regardless, the bolt gun is not mean to be administered more than once.

Well, I'm sure there are a lot of safety reasons in place for not using live bullets and ammunition in the slaughter houses, and also cost.  I can't help this, but they have such a hard time hitting the horses with the captive bolt gun, can you imagine what it would be like with bullets flying around.  With a gunshot, it has to be placed very accurately in order to be effective in one shot, so that is no better route to go either in the slaughter plant. 

The reason that they stun the animal instead of killing it outright is that a carcass must be bled out to be fit for human consumption, and the easiest way to bleed it out (sorry this is nasty) is to hang the animal, while the heart is still beating and use a combo of gravity and the pumping of the heart to get all the blood out of the body.  That is why they can't take "downed" or dying animals.  It has to be able to walk in under its own power and survive the initial stun.  We actually occasionally had a cow or steer go down while in the trailer, and if it couldn't walk off the trailer, we had to push it off and leave it in the loading chute.  Someone would then come in and kill the anial and put it on the rendering pile. The animal is rendered essentially brain dead through the PROPER use of the captive bolt and they should not be sensible of any pain once they are stunned, but the heart must still be beating.  This is how all animals in the US are slaughtered.  I have studied the slaughter process in a lot of different ways, including reading exposes on the meat packing industry such as "The Jungle", which is an excellent book.  My stepdad is a farmer and he and my mom actually visited the slaughterhouse to see a load of our steers run through, just to see the process.  They can actually have a carcass completely dressed out and ready to hang in the meat cooler before the muscle stops twitching.  It is a very efficient process.  Unfortunately, as Karen pointed out, the captive bolt is not designed for the anatomy of a horse, nor is the process leading up to slaughter one that a sensitive animal like the horse should ever be subject to.  I can only imagine the terror that my horse Lady went through.  I still have thoughts of what her last days must have been like that haunt me, even though I had nothing to do with her being sent to slaughter.  It is NOT an acceptable end for a horse, by any means.

I have never talked about this to anyone, so that is why I ASKED. I even wondered if the idea of being alive while bleeding out is something that was instigated by those that made up the specifics, I don't know anything about it, but what I do KNOW, is that when I shot my deer, and I GUTTED it out, it was DEAD, and it was ready for human consumption. That is what I was thinking when this was being described, and I just thought that the horse should be dead, and NEVER still alive.... I guess that if I observed this happening to any animal, I would turn into a VEGETARIAN!

Hi Marisa, you will see that when you come to a forum that is hosted by a horse welfare/rescue organization you will get mostly followers who are concerned with the welfare of horses and most likely working to end horse slaughter.  We are the ones working in the trenches and cleaning up after some of the "throw-away" attitudes out there.  No need to thank us, this is what we have chosen to do and wrap our lives around, and there are a lot of us out here!!  This forum gets on an average of 4000 hits per day (lots of lurkers out here that we do talk to who never post).  

When you go to general forums you will find a lot of the people who have probably never visited a horse welfare organization website, and probably don't care to.  I have been called worse names than some of them that were mentioned here, and if that is the way some of the pro-slaughter folks want to present themselves, so be it.  We won't engage in any name-calling here. We also share our views and the facts in many other avenues besides just our forum. 

There will always be the folks out there who look at horses as just a commodity and make money from them, etc., and their minds may never be changed even with all of the cold, hard facts.  This subject will of course spark emotion, as do many things.  The internet is a funny world of its own too; we will find people here once in a while who just simply like to argue on forums and cause a riff simply to entertain themselves.  You mention "winning an argument", and that is another thing that a lot of people like to do via the internet and forums is argue, whatever their reasons may be...we try not to argue here and stay away from that type of thing.  We try hard just to stick to the facts, but emotions will get interjected from time to time...it is nearly unavoidable in this type of subject matter.  We try hard to keep it clean and not personal though, sticking to the facts.  I have some friends who were pro-slaughter, or on the fence, and we always remained friends.  Many of them have changed their minds after learning more, but I still have a few friends who are on the fence for their own reasons (that I don't agree with), but we are still friends. 

Since we get so many different threads started regarding horse slaughter and H.R. 503, I can't help but post this again in this thread that is now getting the attention, reminding everyone to contact their representatives.  Since legislators are heavily campaigning now, there is no better time than the present to let your voice be heard, and they will listen...election time is coming.  Even though it was a huge margin to pass this bill, we cannot sit back and forget about this. 

   Hi, I'm sorry to be a total opposite opinion but I am a 14 years old and i have three horses that I rodeo with. My dad is a rancher. The same act to slaughter horses is taking in cattle, hogs, and even chickens. So if the House passes this ban how long will it be until they ban slaughtering all livestock and the U.S. becomes full out vegetarians. And yes I've heard people say that these horses are American "icons" but what about Babe and Wilbur. I mean i believe that this act is the start of many other unnessicary acts.

FYI.,...I wrote to our WI representative, JIM SENSENBRENNER (WI member of Congress) regarding his stand on the Horse Slaughter Bill and his response to me, letter dated 9/27/06 is, "I COULD NOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE VOTE FOR THE BILL...." blah blah blah....  What a pity!!! Shame on him!!!!!

Tami, did Sensenbrenner go into detail, or say WHY NOT?It would be very interesting to see WHY his conscience would be BOTHERED!!!

Here's a list of the loophole Amendments that are proposed for HR503... read carefully and understand that if 503 goes through with the amendments included, the only horses that are protected are Registered Thoroughbreds that aren't headed for any plants that were existing before the vote, so realistically, no horses would be protected.  I don't know if these were accepted or not, just that they were brought up and debated.

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS MADE IN ORDER

(Summaries derived from information provided by sponsors.)

1. Goodlatte (VA): Provides that H.R. 503 will take effect with respect to any State where it is in violation of the laws thereof to ship, transport, move, deliver, receive, possess, purchase, sell, or donate any horse or other equine to be slaughtered for human consumption. (10 minutes)

2. Goodlatte (VA): Provides that the prohibitions in H.R. 503 will not apply with respect to slaughter in existing horse plants. (10 minutes)

3. Goodlatte (VA): Provides that the Secretary of Agriculture must certify that sufficient horse sanctuaries exist to care for unwanted horses before the law will take effect. (10 minutes)

4. King, Steve (IA): Provides that equines may be shipped, transported, moved, delivered, received, possessed, purchased, sold, or donated for slaughter for human consumption by Native Americans or people from other cultures that eat equine meat. (10 minutes)

5. Goodlatte (VA): Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to make a determination, based on empirical evidence, that the prohibition on shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses to be slaughtered for human consumption is supported by a majority of horse owners before the prohibition can go into effect. (10 minutes)

6. Goodlatte (VA): Replaces `horse or other equine' in H.R. 503 with `registered thoroughbred horse'. (10 minutes)

7. Goodlatte (VA): Provides that the Federal government will reimburse State and local governments for the costs incurred in caring for abandoned or unwanted horses. (10 minutes)

Hey Karen,

I would just like to expess my gratitude for all your help on this horse slaughter stuff and for my class discussion,  you were such a big help,and i would have been on here earlier to thank you, but my computer has been screwed up for the last week and my dad finally fixed it...so thanks again...i'm really glad i came here for help... i definitely got it...

thanks again i really appreciate it, and i've decided to do a paper on it to transfer my ap credits from high school, so i definitely will be looking on here alot lol