Re: RC: Temple/transport/slaughter

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated Fri, 7 Sep 2001  4:23:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Antoinette Smith <broknbel@compuwise.net> writes:

> Also, we must remember, Temple is not against slaughter at all.  

If she were "for" or "against" it, she would not be an unbiased researcher, and her work would not have the validity that it does.  As an unbiased researcher, she studies what "is".

>She
> does what she does, teaching slaughter houses how to better calm animals
> prior to being slaughtered because it makes the meat more tender, less
> bruised, etc.  The slaughterhouse people listen to her because they
> think she can improve their profits, not because they give a darn
> whether the animal being slaughtered is stressed out at the time it gets
> it's head bashed in.

While you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the profit motive (and there is no argument from me that that is what drives ANY industry, including this one), the bottom line is that mistreatment and stress cost this industry money, and reducing mistreatment and stress is a win-win situation--for the industry AND the horses.  THAT is what I have a hard time figuring out--as a horseman who hates to see ANY animal suffer, I have a hard time with the emoting type of "rescuers" who condemn an entire industry instead of trying to make what "is" a more humane situation.  I applaud anyone who takes a horse out of a bad circumstance (no matter what that circumstance may be) and gives him a good life and a chance to realize his potential.  However, it has been my experience that while some rescuers indeed do this, a great many more use the horses shamelessly to promote an agenda, and their actual welfare is often of less concern than it is in the slaughter process.  It seems not to matter to many how much pain 
and suffering the horse may have to endure, as long as he is not slaughtered.  To me, that is not very acceptable.

> Comment:
> I've never had my question regarding what would happen to slaughter
> horses
> if slaughter was abolished answered to my satisfaction.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Reply:
> Good question.  Slaughter rates are actually at an all time low, even
> considering that the rate may be up due to Mad Cow disease.  These days,
> as opposed to the days when the number of horses going to slaughter was
> almost double, there are many, many more horses being bred.  The market
> has absorbed the difference.  

I am always fascinated how so many people who are so vocally anti-slaughter never come up with a direct answer for this question.

You are right, Antoinette, that there has been a decrease in breeding from the tax-shelter days of the 80's, which subsequently has lowered slaughter numbers.  And horses that are bred for specific functions, by breeders with knowledge of what they are doing, end up far less often in the slaughter pen than those who were bred willy nilly with the hope of some stellar pie-in-the-sky profit or laurels.  I personally feel that a great deal of the breeding that went on then (and still goes on, but to a lesser degree) was highly irresponsible, and I applaud efforts to educate people as to the realities of breeding.  Someone said in an earlier post that all breeders should go to the feedlots.  I'll go one step further--all breeders should understand every step of the slaughter process, and visit a slaughterhouse as well.  It does help to reinforce the concept that every horse should have a function in life.  That said--I also think every anti-slaughter person should spend several months riding around with a veteri
narian and see just what idiocy and suffering many horses undergo every day.  Slaughter is not a "nice" option.  But until you can compare it to what many horses have to undergo in real life, you really don't have a handle on the situation.  And folks, it ain't pretty out there!  What is truly sad is that by closing down the little local plants, the anti-slaughter folks have actually made the plight of the unwanted horse worse--a short trailer ride and a quick end was a pretty merciful way to go, vs being mixed with groups of strange horses, hauled in crowded conditions, etc. to get to the "big" plant 6 states away.  At least dogs and cats can go to the local humane society in most cases, which is hellish enough, as they are often held there for days before being euthanized.  The old local slaughter houses were a pretty humane solution, compared to where the industry is now. 

> Wrong.  EIA positive horses are slaughtered for human consumption all
> the time.

EIA is not a disease that is a threat to humans.

>Take a look at your wormer, your vaccinations, and other
> products you put into your horse.  They say, "Not intended for animals
> for human consumption", but who keeps track?  With cattle, they cannot
> have been vaccinated within a certain amount of time prior to being
> slaughtered, but who keeps track of this with horses?   

Who keeps track in the cattle industry?  Nobody.  The enforcement is at the carcass level.  Carcasses are tested, and if drug residues are there, they are not passed for human consumption.  Same in the beef industry.  But in the beef industry, it IS easier to follow a load lot back to a producer, and let him know that he is in violation, than it is with individual carcasses, as they have with the horses.

>You comment does
> make me wonder about what is done with the dead horses pulled off of the
> trucks, but I have heard of people here locally taking thier horses to
> Bel Tex (I live near Ft.Worth, where Bel Tex is located) because they
> have severe injuries & the people don't want to or can't afford to pay
> the vet bills.  I can only surmise in such cases that infection has
> already set in, and Bel Tex does take them.  

Sure, they take them--they end up getting "tanked" (where they go to rendering, instead of for meat), and Beltex takes a loss, if they paid any money for them.  (Call it community service!)  If serious injury or disease is obvious, the killer buyers don't pay much for them, either, because they know the plant won't pay.  And when the problem is less obvious, whoever had money in the horse takes a loss.  Just part of the cost of doing business.  But--as to where they go--it is not for meat.

>I did get that second hand
> but can call Bel Tex tomorrow & ask them.  They are pretty good about
> answering questions like that.  They just don't go for letting people in
> or giving formal interviews to the media.

Yes, they are basically just folks trying to run a business.   They are not trying to hide anything, but with the shafting they've gotten from the media and the folks with political agendas, I don't blame them for being leery.

> Yes, there is supposed to be an inspector present, but it's not the
> USDA's job to ensure that anything is done except that the meat is
> properly graded.  They are not at the slaughterhouses full time.
> They're only there when the slaughter is taking place.  Bel Tex accepts
> horses 24/7 but only slaughters horses certain days of the week.  Dallas
> Crown accepts deliveries during hours when it isn't actually
> slaughtering, too.  Also, what inspector who is inside the building
> doing his or her job can watch outside to see what vehicles are bringing
> what horses in?
 
This is true.  The inspector's job is to ensure a safe food supply, not to be a cop.  Once again, the centralization of slaughter has made a nightmare of the transport problem--when horses were making quick local trips to local plants, this particular abuse was not prevalent.

> A couple of years ago when Cavel International was trying to open a new
> slaughterhouse in Big Foot, Illinois, they admitted that horses brands
> weren't inspected until after they were slaughtered.

This IS a big problem--and again, made far worse by the centralization of the process.  With the smaller local plants, it was not so difficult for a brand inspector to spend a few hours there on kill day making sure paperwork was in order and that descriptions matched the actual horses.

> Honestly, I hadn't heard anything about any return visits on her part.

Why would they be publicized?  You likely haven't heard about everything your MD has done to familiarize himself with a surgical procedure he is about to do on you, either.  One could not conduct research such as Temple's without some familiarity with the subject.

> I haven't had as much time in the past 14 months to stay in the loop of
> things and I do not know for sure how many rescuers would recognize her
> and e able to pick her out of a crowd.  No offense to her looks, but
> they are very unassuming.  She looks like the lady next door who waters
> her flowers each morning, picks up the newspaper off the front porch,
> then goes back inside to her quiet life.  

Likely makes it that much easier for her to do her research.

> Reports do come to me, though, such as the one about the horse that
> arrived at New Holland, bandaged from stifle to toe, dripping so much
> blood that it pooled up under the trailer when the owners went in to get
> it onto the killer trucks without having to put it through the ring.
> Someone actually agreed to load it & it was left at New Holland
> overnight to ship in the morning, but it died during the night.  I got a
> lot more details, I'm just shortening it for this post.

Yes, the sensational cases always get "reported."  Just like on Ridecamp, or anywhere else.  And a sense of outrage about the wrecks is healthy.  But one must also keep them in perspective--how many thousands went without incident, compared to that one?  Just like how many endurance riders went to rides last weekend and did an outstanding job of keeping their horses properly rated, fed, hydrated, etc., and had good luck, and got completions?  But we discuss ad nauseum the one that had a disaster.  That's human nature.  And it doesn't imply that the system is flawed.  What would be tragic is if the wrecks were commonplace, and hence were not news.  That doesn't mean we should not study them and try to prevent similar situations in the future--nor does it mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

> I wouldn't put it quite that way, about them cleaning up other
> people's messes, though.  Almost makes them sound heroic, but if they
> are heroic, it's like the vulture or the rat who eat trash and garbage,
> but they aren't like the vulture or the rat because they don't just "eat
> the garbage", they "eat" the good, the beautiful, the talented, the
> famous, the beloved, and everything else they can devour.  

All of which was thrown away with the garbage.  The statement that they clean up other people's messes is very apt.

Heidi