“And to paraphrase something I said before, the HORSE does not
care, once he is dead, if the person eating him is local or foreign, any more
than he cares if the person is rich or poor, or if the critter is even a
person. The focus here needs to be on the HORSE, and the best solution
for the HORSE would be if Congress grew enough backbone to tell the
anti-slaughter zealots what really happens as a result of their efforts and
then encouraged the opening of small and relatively local plants to eliminate
the parts of the process that are truly inhumane.”
Heidi, while there are times I disagree with your point of
view, this is not one of them. I think it clear that most of those on
this website who oppose humane horse slaughter/processing operations do so with
good intentions. However, by now, the unintended consequences of the slaughter
ban must be obvious to all – more horse suffering, not less. As far
as Congress growing a backbone and buck this ill-advised ban, you probably can
write that off. To our legislators, this was never about doing what is
right by our horses. Otherwise, they would have listened to just about
every breed and veterinarian association in the land who took a strong stance
against the ban for the very reasons that are now becoming so painfully
clear. But the issue to our legislators was about reelection votes –
particularly votes from non-horsemen living in big cities who will not have to
deal with or even witness the consequences of their feel-good opposition to
humane slaughter. And there is a heck of a lot more votes coming from that
sector than from those of us who keep horses that eventually will, each and
every one of them, grow old and feeble and have to be put down.
--Dave
