Slaughter horses? (for food, animal or human)

Should horses be slaughtered for food?


  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
In the US, very few states allowed horses to be killed in slaughterhouse facilities. Soon horse slaughter may be entirely eliminated. That is, it's possible that all states will have laws against it. The laws have been 'lobbied' by various animal welfare groups.

The horses are killed for the meat. In the US slaughterhouses the method of killing was usually humane; bolt shot into the head. In the US, horse meat is used for pet food; if the meat is exported, some countries use it for human food, e.g., France.

It's of course realized that where there IS a ban on horse slaughter, some horses--typically old ones, whom no one will adopt--will be euthanized, and buried.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/11horse.html
Horses Spared in U.S. FaceDeath Across the Border

By CATRIN EINHORN

Published: January 11, 2008

SHIPSHEWANA, Ind. — At the weekly horse auction here, No. 274, a handsome chestnut-colored draft horse, looked at the surrounding men while being led into a small ring. Two of the men looked back, calculating how much meat the animal’s carcass would yield, and started bidding accordingly.


There is no pretense about what happens to the horses sold in this area of the auction, known as the kill pen. Just a few months ago, many of them would have met their end at a slaughterhouse in neighboring Illinois. Now almost all will be shipped to Canada and killed there.

Amid pressure from animal rights groups, horse slaughter virtually ended in the United States last year, as courts upheld state laws banning it in Texas and Illinois, home to the nation’s last three horse slaughterhouses.

But there have been unintended consequences, including more grueling travel for tens of thousands of horses now being sent to slaughter in Canada and Mexico, where, animal advocates say, they sometimes face more gruesome deaths.

Horses that wind up as No. 274 did last month here in Shipshewana, near the Michigan state line, may once have carried children on their backs, pulled wagons on a farm, even been to the races. Now they are lame, aged, fractious or unwanted for any of various other reasons. Some are young, never broken in to begin with.

The slaughterhouse closings themselves may have added to the population of the unwanted. In some parts of the country, auctioneers say, the closings have contributed to a drop in the price of horses at the low end of the market, and the added distance in the shipping of horses bound for slaughter, combined with higher fuel costs, means that some small or thin horses are no longer worth the fuel it takes to transport them.

Add to that a rise in hay and grain prices, as well as a general economic slowdown.

“First time in my life I’ve seen livestock that has no value,” said Devin Mullet, owner of Kalona Sales Barn in southeastern Iowa.
After his monthly auction in October, Mr. Mullet said, he shot 28 horses that had failed to fetch any bids. Since then, he has monitored horses coming in for sale, turning away those he thinks are worthless — often yearlings and the aged, which tend to yield less meat. (Horse meat for human consumption is shipped to countries including Belgium, France, Italy and Japan.)

But opponents of horse slaughter say its domestic demise is a victory, if an incomplete one, in their fight to protect animals they see as devoted companions.

“It’s a step closer to the long-term goal of banning slaughter in North America,” said Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States. “There are fewer horses slaughtered.”

Indeed, even with the busy export to Canada and Mexico, the Agriculture Department estimates that 105,000 American horses were slaughtered in the three countries in 2007, down from some 138,000 the year before.

For many horses, though, export means hundreds more miles of strenuous transit in large trailers. “It’s difficult for them to keep their balance, they’re often crowded, they have no access to food or water while en route,” said Timothy Cordes, a senior veterinarian with the Agriculture Department.

Of particular concern to advocates is the treatment of the horses once they reach Mexico, to which exports have more than tripled. American protections simply do not apply there, Dr. Cordes said.
The American slaughterhouses killed horses quickly by driving steel pins into their brains, a method the American Veterinary Medical Association considers humane. Workers in some Mexican plants, by contrast, disable them by stabbing them with knives to sever their spinal cords, said Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University.

“My worst nightmare has happened,” Dr. Grandin said. “This is an example of well-intentioned but very bad unintended consequences.”
An official with the Mexican agriculture department said the technique described by Dr. Grandin was illegal in Mexico.

Animal rights groups are pushing for federal legislation that would forbid the sale and transport of horses for human consumption, thereby banning the export market. Bills await action in both houses of Congress.

In the meantime, the debate over horse slaughter continues to divide the equine community, pitting organizations against one another.
Many thoroughbred associations support both the domestic slaughter ban and the proposed legislation; the American Quarter Horse Association is against them. [...]
 
Last edited:
I will eat horsemeat, if it's available. I've seen horses starving to death, because the owner can't feed it any longer. That's going to be the fate of thousands a year.
 
For the record, I'm in the horse business, and right now, I see what has happened since the slaughterhouses in the US closed.

It sucks. People are abandoning their stock left and right, and the market is so far down I can pick up registered fully trained horses with no vices for a song. I'm lucky- I have grass and water and I've cut my herd back to three permanent residents.

I will always be against wholesale slaughter of horses- my vote shows that. But there are horses that it is kinder to send to slaughter for a quick death over a long slow decline into painful field death. If slaughter was for those horses that are no longer living with any quality, so be it. But those aren't what ends up in slaughter houses. What ends up in slaughter houses are (primarily) horses with good flesh and good health- I know people who have had to padlock their gates and run security to avoid havig horses stolen from their fields to send to a nearby slaughter plant for quick cash. Slaughter houses don't ask for documented bills of sale. They ask for a head count.

Horses are expensive, and hard to maintain in adverse conditions. I understand why they're ending up where they are ending up (turned loose in fields or public lands, tied to auction house fences with papers and a note "can't feed, free to good home") but it breaks my heart that for a country that was built on the backs of these animals, the US can't figure out a way to put into place practical slaughter legislation that would keep our PETS out and give those animals who have outlived themselves a fast, clean end.

It's a catch-22.
 
As FtF says it is a catch 22. I too love horses, in fact in high school I was a student barn manager. It's been a while since I've worked with them or ridden, something I miss incredibly, but that's besides the point...

There are many people like me who would adopt a horse that's going to the slaughter house, some of them going just because an owner wants to discard them or throw them aside. The school that I went to rescued a horse from an auction that was going to end up going to slaughter, one that was perfectly healthy and still had years of use in him.

At the same time there are instances a horse shouldn't suffer, like an old horse that can't eat because his teeth are too worn down yet there is nothing wrong with the horse. If a horse is already dieing or has a life threatening injury but otherwise healthy then maybe it would be okay...

It's a hard decision for me to make, I have seen the countless numbers of smiles that horses have put on people's faces. Then again oddly enough I have seen that with cows as well...

Horses have so many uses, even if they are lame they can be used still to teach and help kids. If it wasn't for horses we can't be sure where we would be, after all as FtF said they helped to build our country and many others. It's a tough decision to make, because it opens up a can of worms that I'm not sure we are ready to open unless there are serious regulations...
 
The question that is always interresting to ponder when it comes to issues like these is:

What puts
pigs, cows, sheep, chicken, turkeys, deer, moose, salmon, tuna and the occasional frog
in one category, and
horses, dogs, hampsters, giraffes, kangaroos, cats, dolphins and parrots
in another?
 
one argument here is that some horses have served humans well, e.g. won lots of races, provided transportation, whatever. after that, being slaughtered and eaten seems harsh. to use liar's example, after the family dog is a bit creaky, or even if you have to give it up because you're moving into an apt, do you eat it?

so by extension all horses and dogs get covered. EVEN IF the animal never 'served'. In the most of the US, breeding and rearing either of these for food would not be done

parrots: well i never thought about it. BUT now that i own one, who's talking, it's hard to imagine eating it: it's due to live 40-50 years. by extention, all parrots get covered.

for myself, the very 'advanced', i.e. complex mammals, who rarely serve and are never pets, seem to be worthy of protections, e.g. elephants and whales.

guinea pigs, 'grasscutters', etc. you choose.

guinea pig and grasscutter 'farming'
http://www.new-agri.co.uk/99-3/focuson/focuson2.html

http://www.bsmarkham.com/mission/armstrong/grasscutter.jpg

===

the difficulty of making such arguements, is of course a reason one ends in vegetarianism or far down the chain of complexity, e.g. fish and shell fish only.
 
Last edited:
The question that is always interresting to ponder when it comes to issues like these is:

What puts
pigs, cows, sheep, chicken, turkeys, deer, moose, salmon, tuna and the occasional frog
in one category, and
horses, dogs, hampsters, giraffes, kangaroos, cats, dolphins and parrots
in another?

I would say intelligence but I don't think that true. I'm not sure what it is. Perhaps it's the personal interaction level that one has with the different categories. *shrugs* It could be the fact that the first category has been used as food for years, though there are places that eat horse meat. I think it's something that has been ingrained in human kind for years, but I don't think we'll ever be able to fully answer that question.
 
Sorry, Liar, but Kangaroos aren't in the "don't kill for food" category any more.

Never really understood how horses avoided the food label either.
 
afor myself, the very 'advanced', i.e. complex mammals, who rarely served and are never pets, seem to be worthy of protections, e.g. elephants and whales. guinea pigs, 'grasscutters', etc. you choose.
Apart from the practical issue of "How many can we eat before we endanger the spieces?" (bye bye dodo), the "Is this one safe to eat?" and the "Is this one tasty?", it's all about cultural conventions. We don't want ti eat horsie because horsie have served us well while alive. But what other animal consistently serves us as well as the bovine, the dairy cow?

I think most peopole who are far removed form the reality of most food they eat (which is, quirte honestly, most of us - we buy the majority of our meat at the grocery store, someone else did the killing) are ugly-vores. We don't eat cute animals. Or rather, animals that we have been conditioned to anthropomorphize.
 
Sorry, Liar, but Kangaroos aren't in the "don't kill for food" category any more.

Never really understood how horses avoided the food label either.
True, but for most of the world, they're still considered a little weird and exotic to make into a burger.
 
Generally speaking "companion animals" are not eaten but others are. This doesn't really make a lot of sense. A lot of people have pet rabbits but they are also a food animal. Parrots are too expensive to be eaten.

Having said that, why are people too squeamish to eat horse meat but not too squeamish to make jackets or baseballs or whatever out of their hides, or to feed them to Fido and Fluffy?
 
Having said that, why are people too squeamish to eat horse meat but not too squeamish to make jackets or baseballs or whatever out of their hides, or to feed them to Fido and Fluffy?

For me it is because I have worked with horses. I am very careful about the dog and cat food I get, not to mention I don't wear leather. I don't condone people who do, after all animals do die just like people do. I'm not one of those animal rights activists, though I do only buy products not tested on animals and I do not wear make up as I have seen how they do the testing.

I think there would need to be some serious regulations if people wanted to do to horses what we do with cows and chickens and pigs. As FtF said there are enough people stealing horses to make money by selling them to slaughter houses. If we could regulate that and deal with that issue then I may change my opinion...
 
I didn't vote, as I'm not in the US and don't feel I have a vote in such things but my Dad used to board and train gryhounds, they were fed on horsemeat. I see no problem whatsoever with it myself as long as it's done humanely of course.

(Hope Shanglan never see's this post. :p)
 
Sorry, Liar, but Kangaroos aren't in the "don't kill for food" category any more.

Never really understood how horses avoided the food label either.

I've eaten kangaroo I killed and butchered myself. Maybe the specimens I ate were old but the meat had a very strong taste that would take some time to get used to.

I don't think Boy Scouts do that sort of thing now. UK Girl Guides can take a test to win a badge for "Safe Sex" - unfortunately it's a theoretical test only...

Og
 
It's just wrong.

They're intelligent animals who have more of a companion status than sheep, cows, chickens etc.

It would be like killing or eating dogs and cats.

And proportionately there are probably more nice-natured horses in this world than there are nicer-natured people. I think I might feel more comfortable eating people.
 
Oz point of view.

Pigs especially, are far more intelligent than horses and when they are sent to the slaughterhouse more than any other animal they appear able to sense what will happen and they scream: and a pig's scream sounds very human. Hearing 200 or more pigs screaming is awful.

Australians shoot a cull of about 5million large (red and grey) kangaroos a year. It doesn't seem to affect the total population which even with this cull remains steady at about 40 million. Roo meat is very similar to venison but it must be well hung before eating or it tastes very strong. However, most of the cull ends up in pet food.

It is illegal to sell horse meat for human consumption in Australia but it is legal to sell it for consumption overseas (Belgium Germany and France are the main markets). Up until a few years ago at least, about 250000 horses a year were killed at a very remote town called Peterborough in South Australia. No one objected, out of sight out of mind I suppose.

It has to be better to kill any animal as soon as possible when it is no longer fit to enjoy an active life. Sentimentality is cruel because it leads to animals being transported great distances to be killed 'out of sight'. I was brought up on a farm where killing an animal was sometimes necessary . I never enjoyed it but I would never hesitate to do it as quickly and efficiently as possible .
 
Pigs especially, are far more intelligent than horses and when they are sent to the slaughterhouse more than any other animal they appear able to sense what will happen and they scream: and a pig's scream sounds very human. Hearing 200 or more pigs screaming is awful.

I'm not saying that pigs aren't intelligent, I believe they are highly intelligent. But how do you come to the conclusion that they are far more intelligent than horses? Sure each species has it's own not so smart animals, but that doesn't mean that one is more intelligent than another. I have worked with horses for years, though not recently as I haven't had the funds. I have seen many horses that I would consider more intelligent then half the people I know.


It has to be better to kill any animal as soon as possible when it is no longer fit to enjoy an active life. Sentimentality is cruel because it leads to animals being transported great distances to be killed 'out of sight'. I was brought up on a farm where killing an animal was sometimes necessary . I never enjoyed it but I would never hesitate to do it as quickly and efficiently as possible .

I do totally agree with this, I have had to see horses put down and I believe any suffering animal deserves the right. I would say this seperates us from animals, the sentimentality, however I can't say that knowing the horses that I've known. I have seen horses display the same emotions as humans including jealousy. When an older horse was put down at the barn that I worked at for 3 years the other horses were actually depressed because he was gone.

I guess I have a soft spot when it comes to horses, something I will fully admit. If it wasn't for the horses at the school I went to I can tell you I pretty much would have lost interest, but they were an incentive for me to do my best so that I could get to work with them.
 
I'm not saying that pigs aren't intelligent, I believe they are highly intelligent. But how do you come to the conclusion that they are far more intelligent than horses? Sure each species has it's own not so smart animals, but that doesn't mean that one is more intelligent than another. I have worked with horses for years, though not recently as I haven't had the funds. I have seen many horses that I would consider more intelligent then half the people I know.

But under this argument, you have either ruled out killing all animals for food, as they each would have their own special form of intelligence, or you negate it as a justifyable reason as to why we shouldn't kill one type of animal (ie horses) but think it's OK to kill another (such as pigs or cows) for purposes of food.
 
Sorry, Liar, but Kangaroos aren't in the "don't kill for food" category any more.

Never really understood how horses avoided the food label either.

Uhm ... not everywhere. :eek:

I've eaten horse meat. Not that's is available all over the place, but it used to be cheap meat when I was a kid. And I know dog meat is a specialty in some countries. Far East mostly. Same with monkeys.

It's what you're used to, I guess.

ETA: I voted neutral, by the way.
 
Last edited:
I didn't vote at all.

It's up to the US to sort out, either state by state or nationally.

However I think that the argument should be about how horses should be slaughtered efficiently, not what happens afterwards.

Og
 
But under this argument, you have either ruled out killing all animals for food, as they each would have their own special form of intelligence, or you negate it as a justifyable reason as to why we shouldn't kill one type of animal (ie horses) but think it's OK to kill another (such as pigs or cows) for purposes of food.

Generally speaking, predators are more intelligent than herbivores. I can't think of any mammal that is a predator and is raised for food. Dogs are raised for food in some parts of the world, but I believe they, like pigs, are scavengers more than predators, although both will kill and eat prey.
 
Generally speaking, predators are more intelligent than herbivores. I can't think of any mammal that is a predator and is raised for food. Dogs are raised for food in some parts of the world, but I believe they, like pigs, are scavengers more than predators, although both will kill and eat prey.

I won't argue with that, although it's as much likely that preditors are harder to control and manage in captivity -- although people still eat plenty of preditors (I've had bear), just not in quantities that we regularly think of them as being there for food.

But the original argument this statement was addressing was that we didn't eat horses because of their intellegence. So to use the preditor over herbivore argument, we should actually think more of protecting pigs, who at least sometimes kill and eat prey, over horses that are strictly herbivores because as a sometimes hunter, the pig must be more intellegent.
 
But under this argument, you have either ruled out killing all animals for food, as they each would have their own special form of intelligence, or you negate it as a justifyable reason as to why we shouldn't kill one type of animal (ie horses) but think it's OK to kill another (such as pigs or cows) for purposes of food.

I was replying to someone's post that said pigs were more intelligent than horses, which I was only trying to say isn't necessarily true. I was also making the point that they can get sentimental as well, I was not saying that it was or was not a reason to kill or not kill.

Pigs are raised for food, no I don't agree with inhumane killing no matter the reason...Horse are raised to serve humans in numerous capacities as FtF says. Would you kill a dog that you raised as a family pet to eat it?
 
Back
Top