Responsibility for ex-racehorses

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

You have to wonder if there would have been so much news about the horse if the movie hadn't come out though. It seems that retired racehorses make much more news when victims of abuse, mainly because I think people can say this horse made x amount of $ on the track and no one took care of it afterwards, also you can use names like Secretariat and Kentucky Derby winner relative etc.. I heard somewhere that less exracehorses end up in slaughter pens than other horse, but I think most people would suspect otherwise because of the image of racing.

You really have to look at the slaughter numbers in terms of percentages and not just raw numbers. An estimated 10% of horses headed to slaughter are TBs...or somewhere around 9-10,000 annually...or 30% plus of a single years foal crop. Those are not good statistics.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

You really have to look at the slaughter numbers in terms of percentages and not just raw numbers. An estimated 10% of horses headed to slaughter are TBs...or somewhere around 9-10,000 annually...or 30% plus of a single years foal crop. Those are not good statistics.

The catch 22 of this is that when they outlawed slaughter in the US, the horses are simply shipped to places where they can still do it. What that has done, IMO, is put horses at more risk of being inhumanely killed. I remember reading some awful things about a Mexican slaughterhouse using just horrific methods. How an animal is slaughtered should matter as much as the fact that it is slaughtered to begin with.

[Linny]

The banning of slaughter means that horses that might have been slaughtered "locally" now suffer for days and weeks before meeting their end. It also means more cases of abandonment, especially in such hard economic times. Honestly (I'm zipping my flame suit) if there was a slaughterhouse in every county and it was quick and didn't drag the horses into weeks of terror in pens and trucks I'd rather be ale to lead ol' Dobbin down there are get a couple of bucks rather than paying for euthanasia and disposal. The difference between getting $200 for meat value vs paying $750 is almost $1000. If I'm struggling enough that I am contemplating disposing of my horses, that is significant.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by Linny

The banning of slaughter means that horses that might have been slaughtered "locally" now suffer for days and weeks before meeting their end. It also means more cases of abandonment, especially in such hard economic times. Honestly (I'm zipping my flame suit) if there was a slaughterhouse in every county and it was quick and didn't drag the horses into weeks of terror in pens and trucks I'd rather be ale to lead ol' Dobbin down there are get a couple of bucks rather than paying for euthanasia and disposal. The difference between getting $200 for meat value vs paying $750 is almost $1000. If I'm struggling enough that I am contemplating disposing of my horses, that is significant.

Being that there were but few equine slaughterhouses in the US prior to 2007--most notably the big three-- Beltex in Ft. Worth, TX, Cavel in DeKalb, IL, and Dallas Crown in Kaufman TX, if you weren't close to any of these you could not lead ol' Dobbin down there ...

For most, there was no such thing as " local " slaughter, and the horses still shipped and suffered before meeting their end right here, unless you were within close proximity to the big three .

There will never be a slaughterhouse in every county --as they incur huge pollution problems and lower the value of property, so perhaps horse owners as yourself should learn how to use a gun.

US slaughter was never properly regulated, and if per chance it does come back, it won't be again .The captive bolt method which has a 10 percent allowable vivisection error , and the ramps designed for cattle will be used again.

Nice end for ol' Dobbin ...

In Europe, the horse is not run into a killbox reeking of feces and blood and the captive bolt is not used . In many abbatoirs there, the methods are clinical, quick, and much less stressful than it ever was here .

There the horses are individually led into a clean area and dispatched with a bellgun--no richocheting bullets and no long nail is driven into the skull haphazardly .

The bellgun was used to euthanise horses at major tracks in the US for years ...

But we did not do that here with our mania for speed and mass production .

Nothing clinical, clean , or humane about US slaughter --travel non withstanding.

The Mexican slaughterhouses use the same captive bolt as we do but for ONE slaughterhouse in Juarez,where the puntilla knife was used --no different than the head honcho at Cavell who was known to cut horses throats that came out of the killbox unstunned .

US methods were based on bovine slaughter--ignoring the equine instincts and cranial structures .

Where do you live that it costs $750 to euthanise and dispose of a horse ??

In the New England area, a vet farm call may be 75 dollars plus the cost of the injection . I have heard of people paying under 200 for this service and 50 to 200 for a backhoe, etc .

And many boarding stables will bury a boarder's horse for nothing .

No need for a flamesuit for an ice cube that would rather slaughter a horse for its flesh and 200 bucks, than pay for euth and disposal after it served you.

And PS--that abandoned horse stuff is largely pro-slaughter rhetoric--ditto the starving in a field stuff as well .
With or without slaughter , there were always irresponsible and cavalier horse owners that did exactly this .

Talk is cheap, and so are a lot of people .

[Linny]

I have paid plenty for euth for horses bound for slaughter at the hands of others. I have never and would never send my horses to a killer.

My main point echoes yours, Prudery. If slaughter were more humane and and "local" rather than a process that involved shipping under horrifying conditions, meaning it suffers terribly over weeks before the end, it would be a decent alternative to abandonment and starvation.
I am in favor of harsh penalties for anyone who takes a horse under false pretenses ("He's going to a nice home" or "he'll be retrained as a little kids horse") knowing full well that they intend to send a horse to a killer, but I can see why for some people it is what they "have to do.
Many people in this economy are struggling to feed their families and cannot afford proper disposal of a horse they can no longer pay for but cannot even give away because everyone else is struggling. They would rather take meat price, IF they knew that the horse would be quickly and humanely dispatched.

In rural areas with lots of land, disposal is less expensive. In more urban environments (near NYC, LA etc) it costs more because you can't just bury a horse in the yard under the old oak tree.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by Linny

I have paid plenty for euth for horses bound for slaughter at the hands of others. I have never and would never send my horses to a killer.

My main point echoes yours, Prudery. If slaughter were more humane and and "local" rather than a process that involved shipping under horrifying conditions, meaning it suffers terribly over weeks before the end, it would be a decent alternative to abandonment and starvation.
I am in favor of harsh penalties for anyone who takes a horse under false pretenses ("He's going to a nice home" or "he'll be retrained as a little kids horse") knowing full well that they intend to send a horse to a killer, but I can see why for some people it is what they "have to do.
Many people in this economy are struggling to feed their families and cannot afford proper disposal of a horse they can no longer pay for but cannot even give away because everyone else is struggling. They would rather take meat price, IF they knew that the horse would be quickly and humanely dispatched.

In rural areas with lots of land, disposal is less expensive. In more urban environments (near NYC, LA etc) it costs more because you can't just bury a horse in the yard under the old oak tree.

How much is plenty to pay for euth and disposal ???

And I am not in a rural area ...

I get what you are saying, but if slaughter paid nothing-- would you or others chose it ?

People forget that horses are a luxury and cost a lot of money .

Have you checked vet fees for smalll animals as well .

The biggest problem is overbreeding of all the popular breeds .

Next is poor training--which makes a horses not worth much in utlity.

And of course, irresponsible horse husbandry, and people owning horses that can not afford them, and should not have them .

And I never condoned " more humane " slaughter as an option for me--because we will never have it, and it IS all about the money on both ends ..

[richard]

Well stated Prudery .

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

You really have to look at the slaughter numbers in terms of percentages and not just raw numbers. An estimated 10% of horses headed to slaughter are TBs...or somewhere around 9-10,000 annually...or 30% plus of a single years foal crop. Those are not good statistics.

100,000 horses are slaughtered every year?

People are that irresponsible to keep breeding their horses like that? Pathetic.