THIS IS AN INTERACTIVE RANT. IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO READ THIS, PLEASE TAKE THE EXTRA THREE SECONDS AT THE END TO REGISTER YOUR RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION.
This video shows Canadian horses – which have been bred and fed for this purpose – being loaded from sterile feed lots onto trucks, brought to Calgary airport, put into enclosed boxes like they are toasters, and onto planes destined for Japan. This is the kind of shameful trade that seemingly inept Canadian legislators, useless bureaucrats at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and a few greedy, wealthy business people are getting away with while we are not looking. All this is being driven by the demand of rich, gluttonous Japanese people who want to eat our horses on a plate.
I submit that horses are not produce – they are living, feeling, sentient beings and this is WRONG on a few different levels.
No point in writing to the CFIA about it because you will get the same form letter back that I got, basically justifying the jobs of people who work there. They aren’t even doing their jobs to the fullest extent on a daily basis, (evidence in the video) so not likely they will be able to handle any kind of demand for extra or quality work.
No point in communicating with any of the organizations responsible for animal welfare either because they have convinced themselves that they are fine with this. The people who run this business are seemingly so much smarter then them that it looks like they can’t even figure out a way to deal with it – accept to call it normal and avoid the issue as much as possible.
It’s probably also no coincidence that horses are being shipped from Alberta, the province where horses can be raised more easily like livestock and the population is most likely to accept the practice, being the most acclimatized to a livestock paradigm. This business would stand out like a sore thumb in most provinces.
Transport Canada and Canadian Airport Authorities have the power to stop this as well. Good luck with that. They would be as bureaucratic as the CFIA and it would take five years just to strike up a task force to consider the question.
Who you gonna call? I don’t know – the Canadian system, as always, is a wasteland of inaction, mindlessness and reactive bad decision making. Those responsible are like that famous bull who just “goes where he’s pushed” and at the moment, those who are getting rich off of this brutal industry are pushing harder than other Canadians who claim to be “animal lovers” or “horse lovers”.
It would appear that these slimy characters are getting away with carrying on this business because, it appears that, although most Canadians love THEIR OWN animals or horses, they are not truly “horse lovers” in the larger sense of the word. Or perhaps they don’t have a minute or two to consider the plight of the horses in this video or they don’t care to speak out against it, sign a petition, write to a legislator, or anything else. There are many around the world openly opposing and fighting against this kind of activity – apparently not many in Canada, where we slaughter the American horses because their population doesn’t want it – and don’t mind telling their legislators that – over and over again. Ultimately though, the business interests just won’t take their mitts and bats and go home. They keep introducing new legislation to re-open slaughterhouses – which we valiantly beat down – it’s a vicious circle and never-ending game, but it CAN be won if enough people care to do something about it.
So, what I am interested in knowing – are there enough Canadians who care enough about this practice to take the first step and admit that they think it is wrong and publicly say that, or is the real problem simply that Canadian “horse lovers” really just don’t give a hoot – or maybe think that this is OK, and not something to get excited about? Is it possible that people just don’t know about it? Really – what is going on here?
If you have three seconds, please select one of the following options in the poll:
Thanks to those who respond – whether or not you play along, I will get my answer, because those who don’t are obviously either 1 or 4.
After a night of careful deliberation and a rigorous boxing match between each direction of my moral compass, I’ve finally decided to write about this issue. I’ve written about Alberta a few times before – Canadian slaughterphile and HWAC Chair Bill DesBarres, the Calgary Stampede, and our anti-slaughter billboard have featured predominantly in the past. DesBarres is also the paid public representative of Claude Bouvry – the owner of Bouvry Exports. Horse slaughter seems to be almost an entrenched tradition in Alberta, with Bouvry’s two plants and the Stampede setting the tone for institutionalized animal abuse and neglect.
The various feedlots nearby and the Bouvry slaughter plant were part of an investigation by Animals Angels in October 2012; you can read the full report here. There is also additional footage of the various Alberta feedlots by the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition as part of “The True Faces of Horse Slaughter” investigation.
Another staple in Alberta is the television show “Heartland,” a family series based on the Heartland books by Lauren Brooke. The series chronicles the highs and lows of ranch life and it is filmed in Alberta – feedlot capital of Canada. The Facebook page is filled with perpetually optimistic fans pleading for better love lives for the characters, and it’s a place where “True Heartlanders” are never bored with reruns. As far as I know, the closest this series has come to treading on the topic of slaughter is an episode where a dozen wild horses are found in a “feedlot,” which the scriptwriters tell us is a “place where they keep cows before they kill them.” I’m wondering if the producers have ever seen a real feedlot, where thousands upon thousands of horses are waiting to be slaughtered, not a dozen. They’re not difficult to find in Alberta! But realistically, that’s just too much reality for a family show….
A few days ago the television show became embroiled in something of a scandal – it’s the only time I ever saw harsh words exchanged on that Facebook page. And it was reserved for horse welfare advocates after several individuals recognized one of the trailers photographed at the Bouvry slaughterhouse as belonging to a well-known contractor and animal wrangler for the show. John Scott Productions supplies horses for this show and others, as well as sets, props, wagons and buggies.
It’s a working ranch with over 100 horses, as well as buffalo and longhorns, according to their website. Although the Animals’ Angels investigation took place in October, the connection wasn’t made until recently and then the Heartland producers were forced to deal with the reality of the incriminating photos and investigation posted on their Facebook wall. While some threads were left up, others and comments were quickly deleted. Finally, it seemed as though the people handling their social media accounts decided that the appropriate response was to cease the heavy-handed deleting and give the impression that the situation was being addressed.
As you can see from the Animals’ Angels investigation, two of John Scott’s trailers were tagged at Bouvry’s on October 18th.
“10/18/12 – Investigators arrived at 7:30 am.
The parking lot was already crowded. Two pickup trucks with stock trailers were parked at the unloading ramp. At 7:46 am, they both left and investigators followed. On the back of the trailers was written: Movie Horses –John Scott – Longview, Alberta. “
Scott Productions Trailers photographed by Animals’ Angels investigators immediately after leaving the Bouvry plant
Fans of the show were simultaneously shocked and/or in denial about the possibility that horses were taken to slaughter. It’s an awkward situation for the producers of the show because the show’s entire premise is based on rescuing horses as an homage to the main character’s deceased mother. Even though they cannot control what their contractors do outside of their business relationship with the show, it presents as an extreme conflict. And it’s largely an unresolved conflict, at least to me and a few others, because we’ll never truly know which animals were taken to the plant on that day.
“John’s horses are not abused.”
“Heartland is not going to stop working with him – he’s the only movie wrangler around.”
Because the investigators arrived at the plant at 7:30, the Scott trailers had already been unloaded. The show posted a status on Facebook to indicate that these were buffalo that had been dropped off, which isn’t inconsistent since buffalo are present on the ranch according to the website. But it gets interesting because the investigators have stated that the buffalo seen in the pens at Bouvry were there THE DAY BEFORE as well as on the same day that Scott’s trailers were photographed – October 18th. There was also some speculation as to whether the two trailers, small stock trailers, were large enough to haul buffalo. Were these also Scott’s buffalo? Who knows. Bouvry doesn’t slaughter buffalo every day.
The producers maintain that the entire shipment was a herd of buffalo, and not horses. Apparently there is a manifest that supports their statement. I will say that, if these two trailers represent several head of buffalo, they must have been very tiny indeed. The producers stipulate that:
“No horse that has appeared on Heartland has ever been sent to a slaughterhouse. Mr. Scott invites visitors and fans of the show alike to stop by his ranch and see how well his horses are cared for. John takes pride in the way his operation trains and cares for his horses, as this has been a lifelong passion for him. Mr. Scott personally owns the horses that play Spartan, Paint, Pegasus, Harley as well as much of the equines appearing on the series.”
Crisis averted? Perhaps not. It may be absolutely true that none of the Heartland horse actors have ever been sent to slaughter, and no one accused Scott or his company of abusing animals. It doesn’t guarantee however, that none of their supplier’s horses have never been shipped to Bouvry; as we know, healthy, young, viable and trained horses also get sent to slaughter and most of them aren’t abused beforehand either. HWAC Chair Bill DesBarres, like a sausage forever sputtering in its own grease, will be the first person to proclaim that he cares about his horses as well. He’ll also tell you that he sends each and every horse that is of no use to him directly to slaughter, because “it’s a wonderful option,” while simultaneously and inexplicably describing humane euthanasia as an “awful experience.”
This entire situation is interesting because it addresses the need for or the appropriateness of industry accountability and governance. While I personally object to talking heads attempting to direct off-work activities and morals, there is a great need for the horse industry to improve its image and more importantly, share their ideas on what can be done to improve horse welfare. The racing industry for the most part has tried very hard to improve its image and necessitate aftercare for former racehorses. Many employers require a minimal degree of off-work behavioural compliance with permits and laws, and may stipulate that employees must “govern themselves accordingly” outside of work and not attract negative attention to their employers. What can be required of 3rd party contractors is another matter entirely. In the end, the producers quickly squelched the possibility of further discussion, primarily because they are approaching their 100th episode:
“There are 10s of thousands of fans who are unaware of any of this and there is no reason to make this a key post on the blog. We have a 100th episode to promote this Sunday. :-)”
Yes, it’s transparently clear where their priorities lie, although truthfully, I can’t really blame them under the circumstances. But I seriously think the show must address the issue of slaughter in an episode, perhaps in a manner more consistent with the original book. I think it can be handled sensitively in a manner appropriate to their audience. Another issue the show management should address is the mysterious phone call placed to a horse advocate from “Alberta Klondike Productions,” seeking contact information for posters on the Heartland Facebook page.
I sincerely hope that the statements of the TV producers are not part of a campaign of self-deception, intended to conceal a possible ethical breach in killing animals whilst purporting to save them in a television show. I hope that Mr. Scott does not send horses to slaughter – any horses, not just the ones performing on this show. The reality is that we do not know what species of animal was unloaded that day in Fort McLeod as the investigators did not see them.
Slaughterhouse operations violate nearly every principle of the humane treatment of animal ownership. Unfortunately, the leadership within the horse industry has grown to lack empathy and compassion for horses that do not meet their expectations. Horses do not understand why their colour matters, that they are not the correct size or shape, nor do they contemplate their appearance in a television show. In the unfortunate circumstance that a horse’s life does indeed need to be ended, it should be done as humanely as possible by humane euthanasia.
Horse advocates have had a busy year working to prohibit the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption. Horse protection groups released many damning reports of abuse and drug contamination, and took aggressive legal action to discourage slaughter.
Undercover footage helped support our position, and numerous investigations were publicized. Citizen advocates monitored illegal trucking activities and for the first time, retrieved horses directly from slaughterhouses. Pro-slaughters proved, via their own (in)actions, that slaughter does not prevent starvation.
We were also aided by the improved sensitivity of testing protocols in the EU, which continued to reveal drug contamination of horsemeat, a finding which is continually met with silence by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, although the subject of drug contamination is making its way into the food webs. We’ve told restaurants in both Canada and the US that we don’t want horses on the menu.
Horse killers, kill buyers and their enablers did not have a good year – several were charged with felonies. Slaughterhouse Sue and Dave Duquette were unable to open any of their proposed slaughterhouses, despite performing an endless kabuki dance around the true status of the plants. Duquette also forgot to send a cheque to renew his own domain name on the web and subsequently lost www.daveduquette.com to a pro-horse HSUS site.
We’ve grown more media savvy too, with PSAs and billboards getting the message out. We are mobilizing via different social media platforms to petition lawmakers. Numerous examples of “horse hoarding” received publicity as well, with advocates rallying to promote horse adoptions through the increased use of Facebook groups. We’ve also demanded that horse killers and those who fail to protect horses and humans be justly punished. However, despite our best efforts to keep Senate bill 1176 and House resolution 2966 active, they both died without ever being brought to a vote.
The challenges in 2013 will be even greater, as the EU moves to ban importation of North American horsemeat and the full force and effect of the ending of the slots program in Ontario are felt. HWAC, Equine Canada and the FEI are also launching “prototype” chipping programs, ostensibly to ensure compliance with 2013 EU regulations. As we fine-tune all our programs and advocacy efforts, we look forward to a most challenging year, but no doubt one filled with hope that we might be seeing the final death throes of the horse slaughter industry. Happy Holidays indeed!
For some time now, after seeing the Infographic created by Republic of Horse – “Slaughter: Industry Influences on Government,” I have known that we needed a similar graphic to represent those influencers and enablers in Canada. While some of the associations that have been mapped out in the following Canadian infographic do not directly enable horse slaughter, they are complicit in that they are silent against the practice. At the very least they seem intent on preserving the status quo and ignoring the very real threats created not only by horse slaughter, but by the power of Big-Ag lobbyists and governments who are willing to be influenced by them and their client base.
In the murky world of government lobbyists, few resources have been applied to investigating corruption or undue influence. Canada has again been scolded on the international stage for its “lack of progress” in fighting corruption by a watchdog agency that ranks it among the worst of nearly 40 countries. The poor rating places Canada in the embarrassing company of countries like Greece, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia – although New Zealand and Australia are also among the 21 countries in the bottom rung. Transparency International, a group that monitors global corruption, put Canada in the lowest category of countries with “little or no enforcement” when it comes to applying bribery standards set out by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Apparently, the punishment in Canada for corruption is that you are given a majority government.
WARNING: Gerry Ritz Crackers consist of 100% Transfats. Consuming Gerry Ritz Crackers may cause you to abandon economic principles, bury your head under the sand, and make inappropriate remarks about dead people, while pink-slipping and pink-sliming Canadians
According to the Ottawa Citizen, Agriculture Minister and failed ostrich farmer Gerry Ritz is the most lobbied official in Canada, exceeded only by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Gerry observed that farming ostrich allowed him “the opportunity to get used to working with lesser life forms” much like he sees “sometimes on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“Lesser Life Form” my ass!
This infographic (downloadable here), along with the one prepared by Republic of Horse, and Jane Allin’s graphic of the PMU Industry, expose the hand-shaking and back-patting relationships, endorsements, and interconnectivity between the US and Canada. In Canada, we can clearly see the tentacles of the Bill DesBarres’ Horse “Welfare” Association of Canada extending themselves into the breed associations, farming groups, Big Pharma, veterinary colleges and associations, and Equine Canada. By way of the lobbyists in the IEBA, we are influenced by Big Ag, Dow and Monsanto, Humanewatch and other organizations that not only advocate for horse slaughter, but advocate for GMOs and against the EPA and indeed consumers in general.
It was a learning experience for me to create this graphic. People are waking up to what is being done to horses. Very few people condone what is being done, but the industry does everything it can to cover it up because they know it is not humane, no matter terminology they use. DesBarres likes to refer to slaughter as “humane euthanasia,” and a “wonderful option.” Contact your breed associations – contact everyone, and let them know what they are endorsing when they associate themselves with the Horse “Welfare” Association of Canada, Bill DesBarres, and Slaughterhouse Sue Wallis.
Canadian Horse Slaughter Influences and Enablers – Click to embiggen. Want the chart as a stand-alone PDF file? Click here
US Version – Republic of Horse
“Web of Evil” Graphic by Jane Allin – illustrating the connectivity between the Unwanted Horse Coalition, breed associations, and the PMU Industry
Here are the resources that were reviewed in compiling this infographic. Many thanks to the members of the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition in the sourcing of many of these resources and their input into the graphic.
Kropius Rodeo Stock is based in Fort Macleod, Alberta, Canada,where Kody Kropius and his father Benny Kropius raise top of the line bucking horses and bulls! – http://kropiusbuckingstock.tripod.com/
When I first saw this gem of a conversation, it really called out to me. It needed a response. Looking at it, I just couldn’t believe the wealth of material it offered. It was/is overwhelming. That noise you just heard dear reader? That is the sound of neurons withering. The more I read these types of posts the more I realize that I’m in need of some kind of prophylactic. Once again we are venturing down the path of rejecting or banning any science that happens to conflict with the pro-slaughter personal philosophy, politics, prejudices, or paranoia. These snippets of posts truly indicate that for every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. I hope I never feel so compelled to respond to another bute posting by a pro-slaughter – their continual claims about bute are kinda of like saying “She Bangs” is William Hung’s best song. It’s also his only song, and if you’ve heard him sing, you know he shouldn’t give up his day job!
Thank you to the lone anti-slaughter proponent who used reason and logic to counter these statements. Thank you Shedrow, for your excellent treatment of these same passages, as you always do. Props to you both! I applaud you both as “Warriors Against Claptrap.” I thought it might be interesting to “tag team” the comments of individuals who want to make scientific claims, but can’t quite subject themselves to the same scrutiny that real scientists do every day.
Most of these arguments put forth by the pro-slaughters are really a form of science denialism. Here’s one of the best quotes on scientific denialism (this is a real movement BTW) by Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He studies denialism, and has identified six tactics that all science denialists use. “I’m not suggesting there is a manual somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many settings,” he says (The European Journal of Public Health, vol 19, p 2).
Allege that there’s a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a façade of credibility,” says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship when “dissenting” arguments or experts are rejected.
Sound familiar?
Here we go!
.
“So here is a big question for all people out there. Bute. Although I’m not sure I heard it mentioned too much before the AR’s realized that the horse slaughter ban was not working and there was indeed going to be a push for horse slaughter to come back. Now as I see it “Logically. I get the fact that it’s something that is not to be put in the food chain. It’s not about that. It’s about a withdrawal time. Now Anti’s will say “there is no withdrawal time for bute” And technically they are correct. There is no DOCUMENTED. And I stress the word “documented” over and over again. a withdrawal time for bute simply does not exists in horses because. It has never been tested for. And really that makes sense. Why test a drug in a animal that there is no slaughter for human consumption for in your country at the time. But it doesn’t mean it does not have a withdrawal time that can be discovered. Cattle have a withdrawal time for all the same drugs. So it’s not a the drugs that lingers in the blood stream for the life time of the animal. I also like to say re treating of the animal is needed which would also lend itself to the concept that the liver of the horse purifies itself of all the drug that is ingested. See I think once a withdrawal date is figured out it would be extremely simple to work around the problem. A simple quarantine would do the trick. 30 days in a feedlot for example. what do you think?”
I think you’re guessing, that’s what I think. It’s the metabolized compound that can kill you. The doctors and veterinarians who attempted to refute Dr. Marini et al’s study expected pro-slaughters to accept their supposition even though it exemplified an argument from ignorance, which started out as an appeal to authority. How did this happen? Sue Wallis and Dave Duquette asked everyone to accept the word of a veterinarian who is an expert in his own field (body scoring), but who is commenting on a field outside of his area of expertise. Dr. Henneke supports the assertion that bute exits the system completely. So what? He’s not a toxicologist. When you want to discuss the Henneke scale, Dr. H is one guy to call. Similarly, if Einstein makes a suggestion about relativity, you’d better listen. If he tries to tell you how to ride a horse, you can tell him to keep his day job. Read Dr. Marini’s response here.
In a survey, 96% of respondents said they used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to control the joint pain and inflammation in horses, and 82% administer them without always consulting their veterinarian. More than 1,400 horse owners and trainers were surveyed to better understand attitudes toward NSAIDs. Additionally, 99 percent of horses that started in California last year raced on bute, according to Daily Racing Form.
In the US, Canada, and the EU, bute is not permitted to be used for food animals. PERIOD. That simple acknowledgement renders any other discussion on toxicology rather moot (not “mute”). There are no safe levels for known carcinogens, which is why it’s pointless to discuss to what degree bute is or is not eliminated from the tissues. Harm is assumed. Discussions of toxicity or “safe levels” are reserved for non-carcinogenic effects. Non-carcinogens are assessed with a different type of dose-response study than that for carcinogens.
Furthermore, the “precautionary principle” is recognized in international law, and it of course stresses that the absence of scientific certainty about a risk should not bar the taking of precautionary measures in the face of possible irreversible harm.
. “commission a study, and petition the fda, usda, cfda and the eu to change their laws and there you go.
k so would they? what loops would you have to jump through?”
The cost of most of the basic and translational biomedical research in the U.S. is funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Unfortunately, the NIH budget has been stagnant for the last few years. Who will pay for this study? A proper study on the health effects of consuming bute may have to follow participants through their lives for 20 years or so. And you would have to conduct a study of current horsemeat consumers, because no epidemiologists will subject non-consumers of horsemeat to a study of contaminated food unless they were already typically eating it, because that would be unethical, as it would be unethical to ask people to start smoking so you could study them.
There are over 8500 references to bute on the Pubmed database. Are you suggesting that we don’t yet have sufficient data? If you have anything less than a study of this calibre (20 years or so) then you may as well be publishing the results in the New England Journal of “Who Gives a Rat’s Ass.”
. “No need to worry much about what will be approved and for what withdrawal time. Markets demand issue free food sources. A quick test of the animal to show it is substance free and it gets the stamp on its butt and off it goes. First nations have 100,000 animals that are good to go till the rest of the market gets in line. Its like sports testing , what ever happened before is mute as long as the test comes out good. Export operations have other countries to deal with other then the US so why would they even consider trying to convince any of them that this or that is safe. I always wondered why the pro people just don’t give the AR’s a win on the bute issue and move on. Trying to convince anyone that any chemical will be OK come a certain point is a tough sell.”
The gold standard for testing drug residues is liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Chromatographic techniques are used in order to separate compounds, and mass spectrometry to identify them. You need equipment and/or a lab in order to conduct a test of this quality. Again, where would this equipment be housed? Furthermore, you would need to test a helluva lot more animals than the CFIA currently tests, which is somewhere around 1% of all animals slaughtered. Currently Canada relies on the EU to catch our errors and omissions. Wonder how long they will tolerate that?
Speaking of sports testing, it’s interesting to note that a competitor for the Tour de France (in France, where they serve horsemeat) came under scrutiny after testing positive for Clenbuterol. It was suspected that he ate contaminated meat, although I don’t believe anything was proven.
I think Canada has just found a way to win at the Olympics in 2016! Who is the host country in 2016?? Next time we host the summer Olympics is the opportune time to eliminate a good chunk of competitors from France, Kazahkstan and Kyrgyzstan this way. Go Gerry Ritz! Team Canada all the way!
. “I think the study would have to come from the USDA or FDA to be recognized, wouldnt it? I cant see them accepting a commisioned study by an intrest group.”
For a minute there I thought he wrote “inbred” group – you know how you scan through something when reading quickly? Here’s the thing, science trumps politics any day. Science SHOULD inform politics, but unfortunately, that doesn’t often happen.
Karl Popper wrote about the scientific method and what makes a good study. It is possible for “special interest groups” to conduct legitimate studies if all the correct procedures are followed. If you have a theory that metabolites of bute are harmless or that withdrawal times could be established, then you must start with your theory and create your study from there.
“But to get it done right now you need to figure something out you know what? What if you tested after they were hung? any part of the horse can be tested then and could you not put a horse to different uses. Say if she has bute she’s fertilizer…, kind of a deal.”
So you’re going to leave these horses at the bleed rail while you send a sample off for the liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry tests? Of course that will seriously mess with your production scheduling. It would be a logistical nightmare, because although mass spectrometry tests are quick (relative to other tests) you must either have a lab (with trained technicians) on the premises or you must send your samples out to a lab or university. Meanwhile, your horses are still hung up (literally) on the bleed rail waiting on the results.
“Another question…sorry again for my lack of knowledge here. When I do toxicity tests on paint samples, I
This is not a photocopier – it`s a liquid chromatograph-mass spectrometer
get info based on certain test parameters (3-5 depending on what the part is used for in the car). I also send a paint sample to the state lab. They do studies to see how long certain chemicals in the paint stay in the body…all a result of lead-based paints they used 60+ years ago. Why couldnt a simalar process be put in place for this bute stuff? If they know how long it lingers in tissues, they can put a hold on the animals until that time frame is expired, then do a drug sample of the horses as they process them. It might be a little bit of a bugger to start off, but within a couple of weeks, it would flow like a well oiled machine….if you’ll pardon my pun! Hehehe”
Please don’t apologize for your lack of understanding. We’re pretty much used to it by now. It’s your mantra really, isn’t it? I’m honestly glad you’re not in charge of the food system, what with your analogy that testing meat is comparable to testing paint samples.
“If you had a stream line way to test a carcass. would that not be the surest fire way to do it? of course I don’t know what the test would be.But I would think a quick test ought to be developed. It’s not that it’s a impossible situation. You just got to figure on how to get around it till you have a system in place to work it right. the inspectors have been refunded and slaughter (should) be back. I think this is something that needs a thought.”
I’ve just described how it would be. It has been developed. And I’ve got news for you, You’ve all been “getting around it” for years and it’s come home to roost, hasn’t it? Getting around regulations is hardly a “best practice” for a business now, is it? Getting around rules gets you in deep shit, just ask Enron.
“I think if you had a sure fire way you’d havce a premium. If food saftey is a issue you pay your safest countries good dollar and give a premium.”
“I like the post above that allowed for the non-buted horses to be sold for human consumption and the positive ones for commercial application. Still using the animal’s carcass in a positive manner. No one ever said human consumption was the only viable market.”
And you send the pharmaceutical grade horsemeat to the poor countries? According to the EID, they’re all “non-buted” aren’t they? What are the other “viable markets?” Dog food isn’t one of them, since collies and other breeds of dogs are sensitive to ivermectin wormers. The only proper thing you could do with the carcasses is throw them away, incincerate them, or mass compost them. Keep the skins, hair, hooves, and process them into other by-products. Not sure the cost of killing the horse would make the sale of these by-products cost-effective either. Or you could simply euthanize them, which is what happens to 90% of all horses that die in the US and Canada each year.
“EU isn’t the only market for horses; Asiatic countries count for a great deal if the market. And since we have been giving Bute for decades and slaughter has only been banned 5-6 years for human consumption, why is this an issue now? Test the meat like they always do, always have done, always will do (just like beef, pork, poultry) and move on.”
“don’t forget south american market as well for horse meat! caribbean nations love their horse meat as well.”
I see that the milk of human kindness overflows. I thought Sue Wallis was going to donate horsemeat to “underprivileged countries” that had billions of starving people? And those markets haven’t caught on yet. So, like other big corporations who have poisoned unsuspecting citizens of 2nd and 3rd world countries, let’s dump this shit on these brown-skinned people who haven’t yet caught on. This poster clearly believes in that old saying “Caveat Fornicata – Let The Person About To Get Fvcked Beware.”
“I don’t have a problem with anyone being against slaughter, it’s just that not many are willing to offer up a better idea in place. They are going to have to die. That’s just real life…so what do we do with them?”
90% of horse owners already have this one figured out. But there are many suggestions, this list is not comprehensive either:
Many solutions have been proposed, most supporters of the GAO report stopped reading when they got to the part where it recommended a slaughter ban –
Ban slaughter and a transport to slaughter.
Enact an export fee of around xx.xx dollar value on any horse leaving the country, where xx.xx is a sum that is significant enough to deter illegitimate export but not financially restrictive on actual horse owners.
Distribute the money collected to be used for gelding clinics, funds for retired racehorses, owner assistance programs, hay banks, grants for adoption, care of seized horses, euthanization clinics, and PROSECUTE offenders who neglect and abuse. Horse registries should collect a breeding TAX which again, is distributed to cover the above. Although it’s not a major source of donations right now, bequests also help occasionally. And never forget that education is key to responsible ownership.
Enterprising business people SHOULD see an opportunity for composting/rendering of horses, perhaps on a mobile basis. Without slaughter, people might start actually TRAINING their horses instead of dumping them at an auction. Obviously, the availability of slaughter is not a preventative for abuse, case in point – the largest neglect case in Texas’ history took place at a property owned by a vet just outside of Dallas, when Dallas Crowne and Beltex were open.
I would also like to see offspring that are approved in order to be accepted into a breed registry, which is what the warmblood registries require – when was the last time you saw a warmblood on a feedlot?
The fact that breed registries show a decline is positive, but since horses live an average of 20 years, it will take several years to see the effect of the decline. Bouvry and Richelieu have already published an accounting that states that they will no longer accept TBs, ostensibly because of the drugs and the fact that most racetracks have invoked no-slaughter policies. We don’t sell cat and dog meat at the end of their lives; breeding of cats and dogs and irresponsible ownership still plague us, because no solution to horse slaughter is without problems. Animal ownership is never without problems, because there are always going to be people who aren’t willing to look after their animals, and the presence of slaughter does not change that. Certainly slaughter is problematic, no?
What everyone is whining about is not much different (aside from the fact we are dealing with sentient animals) from what happened to the Airline industry in the US after September 11. Demand for air travel was reduced after the terrorist attacks, while at the same time use of the internet made it possible to book travel plans and compare the prices of the various airlines – this FORCED the airlines to compete on a cost basis. Then of course the airlines experienced dramatic fuel costs and had to cut back on amenities that had been taken for granted for decades. The industry wasn’t expecting any of this and certainly wasn’t prepared, but they were COMPELLED to act or cease to exist. The cessation of horse slaughter would compel similar reaction from individuals, breeders, and others in the industry. You can’t fix slaughter with all the current players. The Trent Saulters and Dorian Ayache’s will always be around, causing transport accidents and morphing into new business entities, running from the law and avoiding paying their fines. The industry is hardly made up of the most outstanding citizens.
The point is that, despite the best laid plans, people, governments, and organizations tend not to react until a problem reaches critical mass – that’s human nature unfortunately. Of course, necessity is the mother of invention, right? Lastly, I’m not buying any claims made by Wallis, Duquette or DesBarres.
“ll for whoever wants to open the plants it’s up to them nobody else. Again it’s a choice. If some one wants to choose to open a slaughter plant it’s there deal. If they do humanley and do things all properly it’s there decision. Simple.“
Let me drop a fat “no” on that one. It’s the government’s job to regulate chemicals and toxins, and citizens have an expectation that this will be done with adherence to the “precautionary principle.” The public has a legitimate concern that chemicals used in drugs, commerce, and foods, will be prudently evaluated for unreasonable risk. Risk is a function of exposure and hazards presented by a chemical over its lifetime. Unreasonable risk adds consideration of technical, economic, and societal impacts. Canada is implementing a law that requires screening of chemicals in commerce to ensure that the government identifies, evaluates, and takes appropriate action for those chemicals posing the highest risks.
“Yes it is about choice…., that is what AR’s want to do take away your choice. You really haven’t understood this page at all have you? It’s simple AR’s are lying to push there agenda down every ones throat. we explain it to people why they are lies. The more I talk to you the more I understand you don’t care about folks choice to do what they deem right. Your more about controlling the slaughter issue. we discussed bute allot of good examples were given to get around Bute and you bring up Marketing…, Now is that a real reason to stop slaughter? don’t think so. Cause it is the owners of the plants choice to do it correctly If they wanna take the chance that the market may not be there later. Where does that concern you? It doesn’t. But because you are a anti you make it your decision to try to push beliefs on any body who will listen.., that’s not going to work here. If you don’t like the way the page is run don’t comment it’s not hard to understand really.”
Gimme a break! (shoutout to Nell Carter) Reasonable, rational people who are not fact-challenged, UNDERSTAND, even if they do not ACCEPT. No one cares if you ACCEPT the response, only that you UNDERSTAND the response. Blaming the messenger never changes the facts, because a fact cannot be insolent – and you have no right to be offended merely because you don’t like or agree with said fact.
If you are going to argue badly, why bother to do it at all? Too many people are merely mimicking what rational discussion sounds like to them. For the only ways any views can be reasonably challenged are by the supported claim that (1) the conclusion is not true, (2) that the evidence is not true, or (3) that the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion. The only ways you can have mistaken beliefs of any sort is to have faulty evidence — evidence that is not true or that, even if it is true, still does not support your beliefs.
Anyway, this has been another instalment of “Simple Answers to Simple Questions.” The bute ship has sunk, so please stop re-arranging the deck chairs.
Observe the Pro-Slaughter Heart – A Scientific Anomaly
Written by: Heather Clemenceau
Pro-slaughters are free to believe whatever nonsense they wish about veterinary drug contamination in horsemeat. In the US and Canada, they have the freedom to remain uninformed and unenlightened. In fact, if they’d like to do a few lines of bute directly off a horse’s ass, it’s hardly my concern. But time and time again, Slaughterhouse Sue Wallis and her band of buffoons have shown us that we cannot allow them to have any input or control over the food supply. What I can’t wrap my head around is the fact that so many pro-slaughters claim that they won’t euthanize because they don’t want to contaminate the water supply (got any proof of that, BTW?) but they have no problem contaminating the food supply!
Pound of Flesh
It’s my own opinion that it’s heartless and generally illegal to deny an animal pain-relieving medication, especially when a veterinarian or farrier indicates that it is in pain. I can’t decide which is worse – denying an animal medication because it might affect the ability to wring those last few dollars off of it, or “buting” it and sending it to slaughter anyway. We’ve just met an individual who has no qualms about doing either – she will let her animal suffer in pain because she doesn’t believe in lessening pain, but she will or has already “buted” him as a sort of last resort, or perhaps it’s a final insult to horsemeat eaters.
The opinion of this particular horse-owner appears to echo that of Slaughterhouse Sue Wallis of Unified Equine and the International Equine Business Association. That is, denial that veterinary drugs are harmful in the food supply, along with the accusation, thrown in for good measure, that the FDA stipulations about veterinary drugs are “made-up” and “mostly a joke” manufactured by anti-slaughter welfare advocates.
This pro-slaughter owner is proposing that she will drive her horse, suffering from ringbone for a few years now, to Fort MacLeod Alberta to be slaughtered at the Bouvry plant. This highly impractical and unnecessary journey will purportedly be undertaken so that he “won’t be wasted.” Instead of being euthanized or shot at home where he has apparently lived for many years with one owner, she will load him up in a trailer, (after having a vet pull a negative Coggins and providing an Export Certificate issued by the USDA) and deliver him, after a 1.500 mile/16 hour drive, to the slaughterhouse personally. The owner also operates under the belief that she may actually be able to be with him during his final moments on the kill floor.
Naive Assumptions of Pro-Slaughters
I’m really struggling to be diplomatic here. How is it possible to believe that you will be allowed on the production (kill) floor of a slaughterhouse, moving along at a fast pace, whilst spending a few quiet, reflective moments with your horse in the kill box before he is stunned? Does she have any comprehension of what actually happens on a kill floor? The irony (you know pro-slaughters are destroying my irony meters – I’m going to have to send them a bill) is this – pro-slaughters accuse animal welfare advocates of being all caught up with unicorns and such; meanwhile, this woman herself seems to be living in a fantasy world where the kill floors are inhabited with smiling dolphins, frolicking golden retrievers and top-hatted pandas who will escort her horse across the Rainbow Bridge. Furthermore, when an animal nears death, it’s now on its own timeline, not ours. We can’t choose to euthanize it or otherwise end its life on our schedule. If your animal is diagnosed by a veterinarian as non-viable/in pain/unrecoverable injury, it is now our responsibility to humanely euthanize him or her to avoid further suffering. This particular person wants to squeeze in this disposal of her horse at a slaughterhouse when it’s convenient for HER (perhaps she’s got a plan to come up here with a trailer of horses anyway), based on some schedule she has for coming to Canada.
On a very serious note, please check out these undercover videos of Bouvry, submitted to the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition (and verified by the Canadian government) – CAUTION – GRAPHIC. This whole escapade is pretty fvcking insensitive. Aside from the fact that this won’t happen for a gazillion reasons, one of which is liability, and there are serious fines, so the CFIA tells us anyway, that can be levied against you if you make false declarations on the EID, which is exactly what she would have to do in order that he be slaughtered in Canada. So please don’t mess with the food supply, K? We Canadians don’t say “eh” we say “fvckin’ eh!” and we will throw a beaver at you. But not a real beaver, that’s cruel.
The Act will implement tougher fines and penalties for activities that put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. Anyone convicted of an offence by way of summary conviction under the Act would face a penalty of up to $250,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment for a first offence, or more for subsequent offences.
When the offence is serious or knowingly or recklessly puts Canadians lives in danger, such as tampering, penalties are up to $500,000 and/or 18 months imprisonment for a first offence proceeded by way of summary conviction, or more for subsequent offences. Anyone convicted of an offence by way of indictment will face even higher fines and penalties.
Current Legislation
Current Penalties
Safe Food for Canadians Act
Canada Agricultural Products Act
Summary Conviction– $50,000 fine and/or 6 months imprisonmentIndictable Offence– $250,000 fine and/or 2 years imprisonment(Amount of the fine for an subsequent offence could be higher if designated by regulation)
For most offences:Summary Conviction (First offence)– $250,000 fine and/or 6 months imprisonmentSummary Conviction (Subsequent offence)– $500,000 fine and/or 18 months imprisonmentIndictable Offence– $5,000,000 fine and/or 2 years imprisonmentFor certain serious offences*:Summary Conviction (First offence)– $500,000 fine and/or 18 months imprisonmentSummary Conviction (Subsequent offence)– $1,000,000 fine and/or 2 year imprisonmentIndictable Offence– Unlimited fine and/or 5 year imprisonment*: Tampering, providing false information, failing to comply with an order, or knowingly or recklessly causing a risk
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
Summary Conviction– $50,000 fine and/or 6 months imprisonmentIndictable Offence – $250,000 fine and/or 2 years imprisonment
Fish Inspection Act
Summary Conviction (First offence)– $20,000 fine and/or 3 months imprisonmentSummary Conviction (Subsequent offence)– $50,000 fine and/or 2 years imprisonmentIndictable Offence (Corporation)– $250,000 fineIndictable Offence (Individual) – $100,000 fine and/or 5 years imprisonment
Meat Inspection Act
Most offencesSummary Conviction– $50,000 fine and/or 6 months imprisonmentCertain serious offencesIndictable Offence – $250,000 fine and /or 2 years imprisonment
Food and Drugs Act
Summary Conviction– $50,000 fine and/or 6 months imprisonmentIndictable Offence – $250,000 fine and/or 3 years imprisonment
Dr. Richard Arsenault, director of the meat programs division for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), thinks that the regulations are working. “It’s extremely well respected in terms of compliance,” he says. Obviously, he hasn’t met our little case-study! His statements are alarming from a food safety perspective due to drugs that are banned in animals raised for slaughter but are regularly administered by horse owners and veterinarians, including common wormers, vaccines, diuretics, NSAIDS, and analgesics. It is because of these very drugs that Bouvry and Richelieu slaughterhouses in Canada previously issued a statement that they would no longer accept Thoroughbreds for slaughter.
EID Disclosure – Horse cannot be slaughtered if this form is honestly completed
In conclusion, there is no way this horse can ethically be slaughtered in Canada (not that horse slaughter is ethical to begin with). If the owner is honest with respect to the EID, and if Bouvry is acting in accordance with the CFIA’s own regulations regarding prohibited drugs such as Bute, the horse would presumably be declined. Then what could conceivably happen? She would drive him all the way back to the States after completing even more paperwork? It is my sincere hope that someone on the pro-slaughter side will rise to the occasion and educate this poorly-informed woman before she makes a series of mistakes and presuppositions that will prolong the pain and anxiety for this horse, a pet she has apparently had since childhood. Driving your horse to a different country when you could simply euthanize him at home and render him (if that service is available and that’s what you want) is the nadir of foolhardiness.
“The pound of flesh which I demand of him Is deerely bought, ’tis mine, and I will have it.
I am sorry for thee: thou art come to answer A stony adversary, an inhuman wretch uncapable of pity, void and empty From any dram of mercy.”
Pro-slaughters, you are now free to go back to your lives as usual – unresponsive, uninvolved, and uninformed. Call the paramedics, and charge the defibrillator, because……….
Artwork copyright: Heather Clemenceau (use with permission only please)
We have a myriad of differing opinions about horse slaughter, so disagreement is an unavoidable. Couple that with the innate desire of many people to “win” in cases of conflict and the widespread lack of reasoning skills that plagues us, and the stage is often set for virulent disagreement. It’s frustrating to deal with unreasonable, fact-challenged people, and there is always the temptation to stoop to their level and respond with the same ignorant contempt that they use as a substitute for actual reasons. So, when reason goes out the window, ridicule pulls up a chair.
This half-human and half-animal composition has led many writers to treat them as liminal beings, caught between the two natures, embodied in contrasted myths, both as the embodiment of untamed nature
There are so many myths and fallacies perpetrated by pro-slaughters that it’s hard to pick your “Top 10.” Well, here`s my Top 20, but I could have gone on for much longer! While in the midst of perpetrating their own brand of mythology, it`s ironic that pro-slaughters claim that welfare and animal rights activists anthropomorphize all animals into Disney-esque characters. Now, I quite like mythology myself, but I know the difference between fact and fiction. While I’ve seen plenty of people give animals human emotions or even claim to know what they`re thinking, many more recognize that they are animals who need to be with their own kind and be allowed to exhibit behaviours inherent in their species. So, for the edification of my readership, I’ve included some “real” horse mythological figures; let’s see if we can all isolate the “real” myths from the pro-slaughter myths!
Myth/Fallacy #1)
Anti-slaughter advocates all live in the city, don’t own horses, are therefore rank amateurs who learn by reading online
This is actually the fallacy of the Hasty Generalization. Not everyone who owns a horse can or should work in agriculture. I know doctors, psychiatrists, HR Managers, and others in professional/administrative functions that have never been to a working farm other than to ride their horse(s). So what? A lot of them know more than a lot of pro-slaughters, and they can actually ride too. These people are the “pleasure owners” who exist in far higher numbers than any other group of horse owners. These are the people who are really driving the horse industry and injecting most of the money into it by maintaining their LIVE horses.
I also have to ask – have any of these people making these claims ever heard of the concept of boarding a horse? If all “true horse people” only lived in the rural countryside, to whom would breeders sell their horses?
Myth/Fallacy #2)
An Ad Hominem attack will squelch disagreement:
Abusive ad hominem usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, because they aren’t familiar with parliamentary-style debate. I’ve seen this on my own blog “You’re from the city, I guarantee you know nothing!” Of course, the version on my blog was horribly mis-spelled, so whenever I’m quoting a pro-slaughter I’ll be fixing up the spelling and grammar unless of course, I’m using a screen-cap. Anti-slaughter advocates sometimes do it too – it can be pretty frustrating to cope with redundant ideas over and over again.
While there are a few pro-slaughters who can effectively debate and will take time to formulate their ideas, they are in the extreme minority. To see more of this in action, check out my other post on Slaughterhouse Sue and her requests to her followers to inundate and bully people she disagrees with. Note that she doesn’t ask anyone to reason with us! If you’ve spent any time on Facebook, you’ll eventually clue-into the fact that when pro-slaughters post on a Facebook page or invite someone to their page and find their overall philosophy is NOT accepted – they report the page as SPAM and start arguing with the person! This happened on the “Kentucky Against Illegal Immigration” page.
Myth/Fallacy #3)
Only true vegans can justifiably complain about horse slaughter
I’ve not only heard this one numerously from pro-slaughters but also from diners at La Palette in Toronto. The animal advocates I know are vegetarian, vegan, or neither. If one feels called to end horse slaughter or pig abuse and still eats fish or uses a leather saddle, it’s not for me to judge. Most advocates I know are actually not members of large AR groups; many probably don’t even consider themselves “animal rights activists” – that’s a pejorative heaped on them by people who are worried about others’ (i.e. the 80% or so) legitimate objection to their behaviour.
After spinning for an eternity, even carousel horses want to get the hell off the merry-go-round
There are, of course, various stock arguments against eating any animals and they can be pressed into service here. Not only do horses NOT merit being looked at as something to be sold by the pound, there are of course, legitimate arguments against using non-food animals in the food chain, and those arguments aren’t mutually exclusive with vegetarianism or veganism.
Myth/Fallacy #4)
There are no true vegans anyway
Glad to see a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy is alive and well! Because we know that a “true vegan” would eschew using any byproduct of an animal, and avoid living in a house that was built with any byproducts of an animal, even if the house was built before they were born!
We are all born into a non-vegan world. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Most people take vegan to mean that there is no consumption or active utilization of animal products and nothing further – no meat, no leather, no honey, gelatine, eggs, milk and so forth. So vegans can feel comfortable knowing that while their grandmother’s ashes are stored in an urn made of bone china, they can still confidently refer to themselves as vegan.
Myth/Fallacy #5)
You must own a horse and work in the “industry” in order to be able to render an opinion
United States – Use of Equids by Function – Click to view original source
To get an idea of the ridiculousness of this claim let’s draw an analogy between the ability to critique what goes on in the horse industry and any other subject matter. For instance, can you quote the Koran? If not, your opinions on Islam are invalid. Can you quote Karl Marx? If not, then you have no right to critique liberalism. How about Stan Lee? If you can’t speak eloquently about comics, perhaps your opinion should not be heard.
The horse industry includes all businesses that profit when more people own horses. The pleasure horse industry is the largest segment of the industry. People who own horses as “pets” churn more revenue through to farriers, boarding facilities, tack shops, feed stores and vets because there are more of them. My guess is that the money I’ve spent on tack, boarding, and training for my horses is a helluva lot more than the back yard breeders have invested. The idea that people who don’t own horses cannot contribute to any discussion regarding them, is one that has been regularly parroted by Slaughterhouse Sue Wallis, who ironically has claimed that she owns no horses.
I will also draw another distinction between myself as a companion horse owner and the slaughter industry – on occasion when I’ve taken my horse to Michigan for an event, I’ve been required to pull a negative Coggins beforehand. The shippers who transport slaughter-bound horses across State lines are somehow able to evade this responsibility. We also read that in Texas, Federal Veterinarians were obliged to ignore the Coggins entirely. How can we require responsible owners to spend money and time to meet regulations that help to ensure control of contagious disease when the slaughter buyers (who appear to be represented by that teeny tiny 1.2% block) bypass US (and probably Canadian) borders freely, without Coggins testing and very little, if any proof of ownership?
Myth/Fallacy #6)
Hitler was a vegetarian too!
So was Einstein in the later part of his life. And Atilla the Hun rode a horse. So what?
A centaur with wings is called a pteracentaur
I can only ::facepalm:: when people (especially christians who are also pro-slaughter) compare vegetarians to Hitler .Aside from the fact that they seem to think everyone around them is a vegetarian or vegan, comparing anything that is not a dictator/mass-murderer to another dictator/mass-murderer is a fallacy known as the Reductio ad Hitlerum. You don’t get to call people Nazis just because you want to inflame or incite.
Hitler’s vegetarianism was not a foregone conclusion but so what if it was? What if he was also left-handed, or a Taurus? Is that somehow a significant or relevant argument? Not eating meat, or being left handed does not contribute to their ideology to slaughter millions. What about Stalin or Pol Pot? Maybe they ate meat? They might not have liked animals much either. People who inject Hitler into conversations would do well to start by googling the phrase imprinted on the belt buckles worn by the Nazis. It says “Gott mit uns” (God with us). The Nazis also were not atheists – one important Nazi slogan was ‘Kinder, Kirche, Kueche’ ( Children, Church, Kitchen). In any case, comparisons to Nazis are irrelevant in this example; it is also similarly fallacious to use the Nazis as an example of what might be wrong with Christianity. Don’t do it. Case closed.
Myth/Fallacy #7)
Humane Euthanasia is not humane
No matter how much pro-slaughters present in the way of anecdotal evidence (“I saw a horse that thrashed for hours”) this does not qualify as “data.” No one is available to examine your claims, confirm with a veterinarian etc. etc. Pentobarbitone sodium has sometimes been used for euthanasia WITHOUT being preceded by a short-acting barbiturate or sedative, and this will actually cause excitement in the horse. There’s no excuse for a large-animal veterinarian not to know this and take appropriate action. I’ve seen euthanasia and it is humane. Do pro-slaughters expect us to believe it’s humane to PTS dogs and cats but not horses? Can anyone really believe that putting your horse in a truck (even a short distance) and sending it through unfamiliar surroundings such as a feedlot where it must contend with numerous other unfamiliar horses, then onto its ultimate demise in a slaughterhouse, is somehow humane?
Rather than relying on the opinion of the talking heads at various veterinary or horse associations, I think we should go to the actual people who work with the animals. Veterinarians should put animal welfare at the top of their priorities, not relegate it to an also-ran concern. The reality is that horse slaughter has never been considered a legitimate form of euthanasia by many veterinary professionals or organizations. The veterinarians who support slaughter stand out in their field as oddballs who wouldn’t even sell you their own services. If they can`t demonstrate to their clients why their own euthanasia services are not better than slaughter, then why enter the field of veterinary medicine in the first place? And why do you deserve me as a client?
Myth/Fallacy #8)
Euthanizing a horse wastes valuable meat
Do you ever get the impression that pro-slaughters are always busy cramming shit down their throats or into their freezers, because they’re afraid they might run out of food? They always seem to have a horse stashed in the freezer. I wonder how they’re even able to focus on riding or ranch work, knowing that they’re basically riding around on a piece of meat? The feeling that an animal’s life seems to be best served by providing food for man is a very anthropomorphic centralism.
Anthropocentrism has been posited by many environmentalists as the underlying reason why humanity dominates and sees the need to “develop” most of the Earth. Anthropocentrism is a root cause of the ecological crisis, human overpopulation, and the extinctions of many non-human species.There is no market for the meat of the slaughtered horse unless you conceal his drug history. Stop pretending that your horse can suddenly be transitioned into a food animal at the end of his useful life, when he hasn’t been raised as one.
Food safety should be taken seriously, if not by governments then certainly by the consumer. Food safety requires that certain protocols are followed with food animals from birth, quite unlike what happens with most privately owned horses. It’s immoral to promote an industry that conceals drug contamination and doesn’t make any effort to determine whether any horses are stolen. Since it seems apparent that no pro-slaughter has ever taken a biology course, I’ll distill it down for them here. Just because you can’t eat it and shit it out does not mean that you have wasted something! All biotic matter ultimately must be broken down into biochemical cycles – this includes all plant and animal life. The breakdown of biological matter is essential for perpetuation of the carbon/phosphorus/sulphur/oxygen/nitrogen cycles, without which life on earth would cease.
There is nothing whatsoever unnatural or wasteful about microbes acting upon dead animal flesh – breaking it down into its constituent components; ultimately this is how soil is created and regenerated and our air is oxygenated. Everything alive is made from chemicals that are only borrowed from the earth. If you aren’t aware of this process then you really aren’t that connected to nature after all.
Myth/Fallacy #9)
Euthanasia is too expensive
It was Centaurus that descended upon a herd of Magnesian mares and conceived the Centaurs.
Compared to what? The cost of euthanasia or any service is a relative thing. The horse slaughter industry’s spokes-whore (the Wall Street Journal) bemoans how unfair it is that hiring a veterinarian to euthanize and dispose of a horse can cost hundreds of dollars. How expensive is that to a horse owner? The average cost to maintain a horse for a year is thousands of dollars, not including the cost of the horse, which can be significant. If you board your horse out it’s easily $400 – $600 a month (on the low end) without adding in any other services such as farrier and veterinarian, and certainly not a trailer or truck. So let’s not even entertain the notion that horse ownership is for regular people. Unless you use your horse to plough fields, you’ve got to be hustling and making some decent change in the private or public sector in order to be able to afford that horse – or be willing to do without a lot of other expenditures. If you’re already spending that kind of coin for your horse, $200 – $500 for euthanization/disposal is already a budgeted expense for many people.
Various veterinary colleges and schools offer euthanasia and disposal/cremation starting at around $100. For anyone who lives in an area where there is truly an issue with disposal, I wonder why no enterprising individual has thought of providing a rendering service? What could the constraints be? While I’m very sympathetic to people who have fallen on hard times/lost jobs etc, for everyone else I say – if this is too much, I have to honestly say that I hope I never need $100 bucks as badly as that pro-slaughter individual apparently does.
Myth/Fallacy #10)
The bodies of euthanized horses pollute ground water
Not exactly a myth unless one intends to pass off the presence of barbiturates as being solely caused by euthed horses. Most groundwater pollutants are created by industrial facilities, power stations, motor vehicles, and agriculture. Farmyard waste, created by, you know, people working in “the industry” is one of the biggest culprits. So while people working in “the industry” are creating the majority of agricultural pollutants, they want to pass the blame for pollution of ground water to those 90% of horse owners who are euthanizing their animals? Barbiturates have been used in humans since the 60s as well as in veterinary drugs. They are highly stable and take considerable time to degrade in the environment, which means that drugs passed through urine and wastewater plants (which can’t capture it) and dumped by pharmaceutical companies will remain in our environment as a contaminant for centuries, in both surface and groundwater.
Pegasus became the servant of of the gods. There he was the mount of Eos to help bring the dawn, or was ridden by Apollo to bring the sun. Pegasus also served Zeus by bringing to him the thunder and lightning needed for the thunderbolts. For all his noble services, Pegasus was honoured by a constellation in the autumn sky.
The fact is that most barbiturates were used in humans as hypnotics, anesthetics, anticonvulsants, sedatives, and antiepileptics, and NOT in horses. Obviously, landfills should not be located next to aquafers and companies should not use landfills to dispose of pharmaceutical waste. It’s also inappropriate to euthanize an animal and then leave it lying in a field where it can be predated upon. Of course, we have more regulations about disposal of drugs now, but it certainly doesn’t mitigate the damages that have been done 50 years ago.
Another question I frequently ask of pro-slaughters (you can cue the crickets, because I’ve not gotten an answer yet) is why they’re not outraged about human burial. Not that we have much of a choice. But most people are preserved in formaldehyde prior to burial, then placed in hermetically sealed coffins. No state or province in North America requires the “routine” embalming of bodies, although there are some exceptions. Formaldehyde is a carcinogen. Although we are burying more people than horses, the ability of embalming fluid to contaminate soil or water tables has not been studied thoroughly. So claims that horses are polluting the environment seem rather extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Myth/Fallacy #11)
We can feed the world – starving people, children, prisoners, etc with horsemeat
This is the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Just because we have horses does not mean that we should give or sell the meat if toxic. Slaughterhouse Sue claims horsemeat will resolve all hunger problems in the US, and her supporters in United Horsemen’s group also claim that it could be exported to Africa and solve hunger in that continent. Why doesn’t she and the IEBA just create a business proposal to sell horsemeat to impoverished African countries?
The problem with these types of simplistic “solutions” is that they can’t possibly account for all the problems in Africa. Like food distribution problems, government corruption, AIDS, the effects of globalization, overpopulation, gang warfare, coup d’etats, the role of the IMF, and the lowest average wages in the world. 23 million starving – we’d have to slaughter every horse in the US and Canada, plus dogs and cats, every year, and even that wouldn’t be enough to sustain them over time. Most African countries have had aid provided to them for many years, and yet the circumstances never improve for the people. In actuality, the divide in levels of corruption in rich and poor countries remains as sharp as ever, according to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), government corruption is a primary cause of food shortages in 3rd world countries, so it matters little which foodstuffs are being referred to as a “relief” for hunger.
How many years was horse slaughter available in the US, and yet there was no real market for horsemeat? Or were there no hungry people in the US for the last 70 or so years? Granted, some people ate horses and currently do. And some people take Bute despite being warned otherwise. But to cite Yale or Harvard as examples of horsemeat eating hardly cuts it as an assertion that horsemeat is or should be consumed in the US.
Nobody is seriously feeding starving children with horsemeat. There is no nonprofit organization volunteering to run a slaughterhouse that would exist exclusively to donate horsemeat to the hungry. No one operating a federally-licensed slaughterhouse in Canada is doing so, and as far as I know, neither are the provincial ones. If our goal is to feed the starving, the grain our horses eat would be a more efficient donation. So good luck trying to pitch horsemeat in North America. Remember the frosty reception given to pink slime? The pink slime marketers are still trying to peddle their propaganda too.
Myth/Fallacy #12)
Horse Slaughter is Humane
A lot of pro-slaughters don’t even believe this. How do I know? Because they keep writing about how, “when slaughter returns, it will be humane and regulated.” So you mean it wasn`t already? If not, why not? “We’ll make it humane.” “We’ll regulate this or that.” This is one of their most insincere statements yet. I`d have more respect for them if they at least admitted it wasn`t humane and they wanted to get rid of the bad players such as Trent Saulters, Dorian Ayache, who by the way, has amassed 64 violations within 2 years, and Dennis Chavez of Southwest Livestock Auctions, who has a chance of going to prison thanks, not to pro-slaughters trying to clean up their business, but to Animals Angels investigatory work. I have to say that I have NEVER seen a single pro-slaughter ever condemn any of these low-lifes who flagrantly ignore the law. Au contraire – Slaughterhouse Sue Wallis endorses Chavez – ergo, she endorses someone who could get up to 11 years in prison! Quite the recommendation. Again, no surprise when you know that Wyoming ranks as the third-worst state when it comes to corruption!
Pegasi make excellent choices as companions on journeys, able to take to the sky at any sign of danger, and traveling almost as fast on foot as in wing.
Half of them can’t even say “slaughter.” They want to speak in doublespeak, referring to it as “processing,” or the “equine terminal marketplace,” or worse – “euthanasia.” They can’t say it because they know what it is. Even Temple Grandin thinks such euphemisms are silly. Concerns about the lack of a humane slaughter process for equines are central to arguments against equine slaughter, and cannot be summarily dismissed simply because an industry association declares slaughter “humane.” And it doesn’t matter what the AQHA thinks (appeal to authority fallacy) – I wouldn’t believe them anyway. They’ve spent at least 30 years promoting halter horses that are of no use to those of us who use horses for pleasure or performance riding.
There is no such thing as “Humane Slaughter” any more than there is “Humane Rape,” “Humane Torture,” or any series of violent acts – how can you bestow humanity where there can be none? Should anyone campaign in favour of “humane” rape as a gateway to no rape?
Dr. Nicholas Dodman is a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, and Professor, Section Head and Program Director of the Animal Behavior Department of Clinical Sciences at Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine. He is certified with the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists (ACVA) and the American College of Veterinary Behavior (ACVB). Dr. Dodman is one of the world’s most noted and celebrated veterinary behaviorists, and is the author of four best-selling books on animal behavior as well as two textbooks and more than 100 articles and contributions to scientific books and journals. With his experience in anesthesiology and his intricate knowledge about the anatomy of the brain, Dr. Dodman is a leading specialist, qualified to assess the stunning of horses in a slaughterhouse environment. He observed the undercover video tape taken at Les Petites Nations given to the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition and these are his comments:
“All of these factors contributed to a poor first shot stun percentage, with approximately 40% of horses requiring two or more shots, and one large horse requiring seven shots, to be stunned. Large horses seemed particularly at risk of requiring more than one shot. Whether this is because of the necessity of the operator to reach up high to angle the CBP down or because of the physical size of the horse’s skull limiting the reach of the captive bolt is unclear. Either way, the operator’s stance below horse head level was likely another factor contributing to the poor first-time stun percentage. Many horses who required a second or third shot, and some who were only given one shot to the head, retained muscle tone for some time, with some running in place or lurching from side to side, indicating that some level of consciousness was likely still present as they slowly expired.
My final conclusion, after reviewing 150-plus horse slaughters in this series of videos, is that the process was terrifying for most of the horses and, in many cases, horribly inhumane. In my opinion, only a one-shot stun is acceptable and this is, in fact, what Canadian humane slaughter regulations require (Meat Inspection Act – Part III). It is not acceptable for 40% of horses to require or receive a second shot. At this slaughterhouse, in cases where a second shot was required, most humane standards, in my opinion, were not met.”
Dr. Brian Evans, Chief Food Safety Officer and Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, claims he had no idea that there were deviations from the standard at Bouvry or Richelieu or anywhere else. No idea, until he finds out through the media that there’s undercover video.
Myth/Fallacy #13)
It’s Biblically appropriate to eat horsemeat
If you think so, more power to you. But due to all the conflicting passages in the bible, how can you really know for sure? In my mind, this justification is very similar to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. And why question the “moral compass” of individuals who are not christian or don’t want to eat horsemeat? How do you account for the “moral compass” in individuals from nations that do not embrace the “in god we trust” dogma”? Canadians somehow manage quite well without the pervasiveness of religion, and why not? Morality is not based on the religion to begin with. Hammurabi of Babelonia developed a system of law and morality about 2,000 years before the bible was written.
Furthermore, morality is a sense of behavioural conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong) and it is not dependant upon the embracing of any religion. Morality is dictated and embraced by societal mores and moral truths, which exist irrespective of religion. We also know that some Christians are not actually very moral people, and you only have to look at politics to see evidence of this.
Myth/Fallacy #14)
Animal Welfare/Animal Rights Activists want to remove all our property rights
OK, here we’ve got another example of the hasty generalization or slippery slope fallacies. To start with, no one has unlimited property rights. We do not have eminent domain over our own property. Owners of animals have both legal rights and limitations related to their animals’ legal status as tangible personal property. In most jurisdictions you can’t fill your yard with junk or abandon your car on the side of the road either.
Of course, laws that are enforced that are in the best interests of animals are not often seen as being in the best (economic) interests of exploiters. Those people often proclaim that animals are merely property. As such, any welfare law that sought to accord animals protection therefore impinged on exploiters’ property rights. What many feel is “incrementalism” against their personal rights are accommodations to animals that the average person recognizes should be granted automatically. Therefore, the only people who are in an uproar about the animals that form part of their “property rights” are those individuals who already have a grand-canyon sized gap, philosophically speaking, with most of society – people who are already using ethical standards in the care of their animals.
Myth/Fallacy #15)
Bute and all veterinary drugs are eliminated from the animal’s system within hours
The doctors and veterinarians who attempted to refute Dr. Marini et al’s study expected pro-slaughters to accept their supposition even though it exemplified an argument from ignorance, which started out as an appeal to authority. How did this happen? Sue Wallis and Dave Duquette asked everyone to accept the word of a veterinarian who is an expert in his own field (body scoring), but who is commenting on a field outside of his area of expertise. Dr. Henneke supports the assertion that bute exits the system completely. So what? He’s not a toxicologist. When you want to discuss the Henneke scale, Dr. H is one guy to call. Similarly, if Einstein makes a suggestion about relativity, you’d better listen. If he tries to tell you how to ride a horse, you can tell him to keep his day job. Read Dr. Marini’s response here.
In a survey, 96% of respondents said they used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to control the joint pain and inflammation in horses, and 82% administer them without always consulting their veterinarian. More than 1,400 horse owners and trainers were surveyed to better understand attitudes toward NSAIDs. Additionally, 99 percent of horses that started in California last year raced on bute, according to Daily Racing Form.
In the US, Canada, and the
The unicorn appears in the Old Testament as something to both fear and revere. Many writers have speculated that the unicorn inhabited the Garden of Eden, but it is not specifically named. There is a theory that the unicorn perished in the great flood.
EU, bute is not permitted to be used for food animals. PERIOD. That simple acknowledgement renders any other discussion on toxicology rather moot. There are no safe levels for known carcinogens, which is why it’s pointless to discuss to what degree bute is or is not eliminated from the tissues. Harm is assumed. Discussions of toxicity or “safe levels” are reserved for non-carcinogenic effects. Non-carcinogens are assessed with a different type of dose-response study than that for carcinogens. Furthermore, the “precautionary principle” is recognized in international law, and it of course stresses that the absence of scientific certainty about a risk should not bar the taking of precautionary
measures in the face of possible irreversible harm. If bute did exit the system completely, we would never see this:
Examples of bute found in horsemeat in the EU
Myth/Fallacy #16)
Horse slaughter returns the viability of the market
I have personally found that horses are most apt to survive when they are not killed and eaten. Without the demand for meat, horse slaughter would cease to exist. I’d have a lot more respect for breed associations if they promoted
The hippocampus, the mythical sea-horse, which, according to the description of Pausanias, was a horse, but the part of its body down from the breast was that of a sea monster or fish. The horse appears even in the Homeric poems as the symbol of Poseidon, whose chariot was drawn over the surface of the sea by swift horses.
euthanasia with a bullet, followed by rendering. Can’t you give horses “at the bottom of the pyramid” a humane death without eating them? Or perhaps people producing horses “at the bottom of the pyramid” should reduce or stop? Horses don’t know they’re at the bottom of any pyramid in terms of desirability. Your average grade horse feels the same fear and pain at a feedlot/slaughterhouse as would any high end horse (not that they end up in feedlots much anyway, unless they`re stolen).
The problem with a reduction in slaughter, for the AQHA (also known as the “Equine puppy-millers”) and other registries, is that it leads to a drop in registrations. Registries make their money from registrations and from show fees paid only by the owners of registered horses competing in registry-sanctioned events. If the slaughter pipeline contracts, people breed (and register) fewer horses, and the disposal method for all these horses suddenly ceases to exist. Most breed associations consider their own survival before the welfare of the horse. It`s interesting to note that there were more than a few Tennessee Walker Horses on the trailer that collapsed in Nashville, another Dorian Ayache and Three Angels Farm debacle. Marty Irby, president of the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders and Exhibitors’ Association, said an organized program for retiring horses would be expensive. He claimed that there was no money for such a program, beyond the money required to keep the association alive. Keeping the “association” alive is what is most important to this industry. They do not care about end-of-life choices for horses and readily use the killer buyers and slaughter industry. Please don’t forget that Canada has slaughter, as does Spain (over 100 slaughterhouses) and both countries have seen the bottom fall out of the horse market. Methinks there must be other factors at hand.
Myth/Fallacy #17)
We’re overrun with wild horses
Where to begin with the BLM? The organization which consistently claims that it is protecting wild horses whilst simultaneously working behind the scenes for their eventual destruction. The US government is spending way too much money to keep wild mustangs in holding pens so they don’t compete with livestock on federal grazing lands.
As Ginger Kathrens, volunteer executive director of the Cloud Foundation, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal: ”You would think there are millions of wild horses roaming the West. It’s pathetic how small the herds are, how underpopulated they are.” In the 1.3 million acres of Antelope Valley, 407 wild horses graze alongside 7,700 cows. ”That’s the statistic that’s common to all their management. The pie is so slender for wild horses.”
Past Division Chief Don Glenn has gone on record as saying that the “simple solution” to the wild horse and burro management problem is “unlimited sale authority.” He opined: “It makes no sense for the taxpayers to put out $75 million to take care of a bunch of old horses that nobody wants. They should be sold without limitation. If folks want to protect them because they’re afraid they’re going to go to slaughter or something, they have every right to purchase them.” He’s right – why spend that amount of money when you could instead leave them alone or manage them with a science-based approach that treats the horses as the native, reintroduced species that they are. The BLM barely leaves an area before the welfare ranchers unload truckloads of cattle on the same land and remove the fences around the water holes.
Myth/Fallacy #18)
Wild horses have no predators
Considering that humans cannot control their own populations (or choose not to) despite negative consequences, is it really fair to manage other species by killing due to the negative consequences they have on humans? The cod fishing industry (now decimated) in Atlantic Canada is a perfect example of resource mismanagement. But when it comes to management of practically anything, governments and organizations that try to play God end up acting the fool.
The fates of horses, and the people who own and command them, are revealed as Black Beauty narrates the circle of his life.
Alyson Andreason from the University of Nevada Reno presented the findings of her research into mountain lions and their rate of predation on wild horses. She documented much higher levels of predation on wild horses – primarily foals – than had previously been believed. Her research team found that the lions consumed “more horses than we would have expected.” In the Virginia Range, mountain lions killed four times more horses than deer. This research puts the lie to the notion, perpetuated by ranchers and the BLM, that wild horses have no natural predators, and therefore, the only way to manage them is to round them up and remove them. Mountain lions are hunted throughout the West, as well as removed (killed) by the USDA at the request of ranchers. If they were protected instead of persecuted, mountain lions could clearly play a role in regulating some wild horse populations.
While mathematical ecology is a new discipline, mathematical physics is not – it is peer-reviewed science. The mechanistic explanation of predator/prey relationships suggests that the machinery of nature functions without us quite well: In short, the predator-prey paradox and prey-enrichment theories will suffice quite well, in fact, they have worked for hundreds of thousands of years. Both predator and prey species are healthier when left to the devices of nature, whose mechanisms are far superior than anything man could devise. Predators and prey can influence one another’s evolution. Traits that enhance a predator’s ability to find and capture prey will be selected for in the predator, while traits that enhance the prey’s ability to avoid being eaten will be selected for in the prey. The “goals” of these traits are not compatible, and it is the interaction of these selective pressures that influences the dynamics of the predator and prey populations. Predicting the outcome of species interactions is also of interest to biologists trying to understand how communities are structured and sustained.
The Lotka-Volterra model is composed of a pair of differential equations that describe predator-prey (or herbivore-plant, or parasitoid-host) dynamics in their simplest case (one predator population, one prey population). The model makes several simplifying assumptions: 1) the prey population will grow exponentially when the predator is absent; 2) the predator population will starve in the absence of the prey population (as opposed to switching to another type of prey); 3) predators can consume infinite quantities of prey; and 4) there is no environmental complexity (in other words, both populations are moving randomly through a homogeneous environment. The model is sound. We’ve seen this play out in real life in Yellowstone Park after wolves were exterminated – this was done because wolves preyed upon elk, animals human hunters also wished to hunt. They believed that without wolves to prey on them, there would be more elk and so on for humans to hunt. This was a foolish and short-sighted view, however – the elk population exploded without natural predators to cull the weak and sick, leading to overgrazing and damage to the environment. The herbivores then starved. Fortunately, wolves have now been reintroduced, and the balance between predator and prey has been restored.
Myth/Fallacy #19)
The unavailability of slaughter in the US causes abandonment and abuse
The global food and fuel crisis is resulting in more than just people going hungry. Rising grain and gas prices in the US and Canada have made it difficult to continue to afford horses. But slaughter never ended in the US – the business of slaughter just became an issue of geography. Horses now travel longer distances, perhaps with the exception of those that are illegally slaughtered in Florida and that little shop of horrors – Bravo Packing in New Jersey, which serves the big cat market. In actuality, the rate of slaughter of US horses was only temporarily affected by the closings of the US based slaughter plants in 2007, and the slaughter rate has since returned to its previous levels. There was therefore no mechanism by which these closings could have impacted abuse and neglect.
Slaughter Statistics by Year – 1989 through available YTD (click through to original document at Equine Welfare Alliance)
This article suggests that horses were turned away from a slaughterhouse and abandoned for being too thin, yet the pro-slaughter faction tells us that slaughter will PREVENT starvation. What a joke! A six month investigation by the EWA and other animal investigation organizations determined the predominant source of abandoned horses in the Southwestern US. The findings show that most or all of more than 5,000 horses a year are being abandoned after being rejected for slaughter at the Mexican border.
It simply made no sense that someone who could not afford to euthanize and bury/render a horse would elect instead to pay for hauling it hundreds or thousands of miles only to turn it loose. Kill buyers hauling horses to Mexico need a place to dispose of the rejected horses, and the most economical way to do so is to simply abandon them on a deserted stretch of road or in an isolated lot. Surely the pro-slaughters don’t believe that the KBs are taking them home and nurturing them back to health!
Groups are now in place to verify all abandoned horse article claims made anywhere in the United States. There is a mechanism in place at the EWA to examine future claims of abandonment as they become newsworthy. Any articles or news stories which make claims about abandoned horses, will be checked for verification through police reports, state park services, and all other places that claims have been made about abandoned horses anywhere in the U.S., due to the findings that many reporters are writing false or unverified articles about abandoned horses. The EWA has compiled an extensive study of horse abandonment reports that reads like a Snopes reference – 26 pages of source documentation that refutes claims of horse abandonment, as reported in various news reports. The Animal Law Coalition also conducted its own extensive study of the metrics involved. It’s findings reveal that abuse and neglect are largely determined by economic conditions. An upturn in unemployment seen in late 2007 appears to have translated into the beginning of an upturn in abuse and neglect in early 2008.
This is not to say that there are no cases of horse abandonment at all – there are no doubt a great many opportunistic, cruel people who will abandon horses in desolate areas, but people who commit these types of acts will abuse animals with or without the presence of slaughter! Face facts – people who neglect or abandon their horses have chosen NOT to send that horse to slaughter. I would call that a resounding FAILURE of slaughter to control horse neglect or impact the value of horses.
I wonder what the president of the AQHA has to say about these findings since he has released a statement claiming the abandonment of horses as a reason to support slaughter?
Myth/Fallacy #20)
The 80% is Bogus!
If you’re complaining about all the AR/AW activists getting up in your business, then it’s time to acknowledge exactly why there are so many of us – we’re the NORM, We’re the 80%. We’re the majority. There is no secretive, clandestine, Machiavellian worldwide animal rights and liberation movement underway. We’re “out there” and we’re regular people. A 2004 Ipsos-Reid poll that showed 2/3 (64%) of Canadians opposed to the practice of slaughtering horses for human consumption, and ASPCA Research Confirms Americans Strongly Oppose Slaughter of Horses for Human Consumption, in a poll conducted by Lake Research Partners.
Conclusion:
Discerning which voices to listen to is, as best as I can tell, a function of your degree of expertise in the subject and your innate intelligence, breadth of general knowledge of how the world works and reasoning capacity, which allow you to smell when someone is spoon-feeding you bullshit. Reasonable, rational people who are not fact-challenged, understand even if they do not accept. Blaming the messenger never changes the facts, because a fact cannot be insolent – and you have no right to be offended merely because you don’t like or agree with said fact. If you’re going to argue badly, why do it at all?
The only way any views can be reasonably challenged are by the claim that the conclusion is not true, the evidence is not true, or that the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion. The only ways you can have mistaken beliefs is to have faulty evidence – evidence that is not true or that even if it is true, does not support your beliefs.
Join the children’s letter writing campaign! (Click image to jump to the program at the Equine Welfare Alliance!
The report included some eyebrow-raising facts including:
HWAC’s formation being in response to Canada’s anti-slaughter movement, prompted by the CHDC’s first investigative report, “Black Beauty Betrayed” in 2008.
the true purpose of HWAC, which is not horse welfare, but the promotion and support of North America’s horse slaughter industry;
proof of HWAC’s affiliation with Canada’s largest horse slaughter plant, Bouvry Exports;
HWAC’s founder, Bill DesBarres is a Board member with the Alberta Equestrian Federation, and thus manoeuvred to include all provincial horse federations under HWAC;
Bill DesBarres’ reaction to authentic footage obtained from Bouvry Exports in the CHDC 2010 report, “Chambers of Carnage” was to dispute its authenticity, saying: “I’m not convinced that those pictures were taken at Fort MacLeod. These things are produced by people who have a different agenda. They are against animal agriculture, period.”
HWAC’s affiliation with extreme pro-slaughter groups in the U.S. under State of Wyoming Legislature Republican Sue Wallis.
South of the border, DesBarres American counterpart and horse slaughter advocate, Rep. Sue Wallis, has been hard at work laying the groundwork for horse slaughter plants to re-open in the US after a 6-year moratorium. Despite failed attempts at re-establishing slaughter in Wyoming and Mountain Grove, Missouri, Rep. Wallis, the recently-resigned President of the United Horsemen’s group, is refocusing her efforts on alternative locations in Southern Missouri, Oregon, New Mexico, Nebraska, Iowa, Washington, and Oklahoma. It has recently been revealed that the site of that location in Missouri is Rockville, a town of less than 200 people, and the site of a now-closed beef processing plant. Wallis is counting on the fact that the plant is located in this small town where 50-60 residents were previously employed at the plant, which was closed by the owners as a result of USDA pressure. Via a press release from the IEBA, Wallis announced that “Americans Eat Horses, and the World is Hungry Enough to Help Us Save Them.” If Americans ate horses and there was a buck to be made, horse meat would be in grocery stores long ago. There was nothing stopping the selling of horse meat during all the years they were slaughtered in the US. Wallis claims horsemeat will resolve all hunger problems in the US, and her supporters in United Horsemen’s group also claim that it could be exported to Africa and solve hunger in that continent. Why doesn’t she just create a business proposal to sell horsemeat to impoverished African countries?
The problem with these types of simplistic “solutions” is that they can’t possibly account for all the problems in Africa. Like food distribution problems, government corruption, AIDS, the effects of globalization, overpopulation, gang warfare, coup d’etats, the role of the IMF, and the lowest average wages in the world. 23 million starving – we’d have to slaughter every horse in the US and Canada, plus dogs and cats, every year, and even that wouldn’t be enough to sustain them over time. Most African countries have had aid provided to them for many years, and yet the circumstances never improve for the people. Pro-slaughters think you can throw horsemeat at anyone and they will literally rise up from the grave in good health and prosperity. Wallis’ rejection of food safety regulations would be laughable if not dangerous. Food safety regulations are to protect humans, not animals, and the veterinarian sources she cites are not able to make determinations as to the acceptable limits of drug residues, if any, because they are not toxicologists. The reason she is so irrational on food safety is that if food safety regulations were enforced with horses, she would not be able to set up her slaughter empire!
Incidentally, Wallis is running for re-election in Wyoming, and her professional bio lists her as a “writer” and a “poet.” Well, I’ve read her so-called poetry. IMO, cowboy poetry sucks because they can’t rhyme anything with “saddles.” It’s even worse with Sue trying her hand writing about “Mustang meat-patties” and “BLM Burgers.” I’d rather be hog-tied than have to listen to a Sue Wallis poetry reading.
American horses are exported to Canada or Mexico for slaughter
While Wallis has previously moved around, working under the guise of several organizations, most recently Unified Equine LLC (which apparently no longer has a web presence apart from its Facebook page), she is attempting to re-brand herself by creating yet another organization to further her pursuit of horse slaughter in America: The International Equine Business Association. (IEBA). This organization now includes Belgian monetary backer Olivier Kemseke of Chevideco, an international horse slaughter corporation and Canadian Bill DesBarres, of the ironically-named Horse Welfare Alliance of Canada. (HWAC). Chevideco, the owner of the Dallas Crown horse slaughter facility, owes the City of Kaufman, Texas numerous fines for the environmental grotesqueries of their plant. HWAC is also public representative of Claude Bouvry, owner of Bouvry Exports in Alberta – Canada’s largest horse slaughter plant. Bouvry is also owner of many large horse feedlots in Alberta, Shelby, Montana and Fallon, Nevada. As such, we are confident in asserting that these three individuals do not represent the horse industry – they represent the meat industry!
The last few months have been busy for the aptly named “Slaughterhouse Sue” Wallis. Not content merely to confine herself to arranging duplicitous business enterprises, she has been given her walking papers by the town of Mountain Grove, MO, she has crumbled under pressure on a radio program, written endorsements for feedlot owners under investigation and slaughterhouse owners who have had their operations suspended for cruelty violations. In 2011, she was the subject of an ethics enquiry in her own state by an animal activist. On the United Horsemen’s page on Facebook, she has started calling anti-slaughter legislators in Congress “socialists,” after a press release announced the cancellation of the 2nd Summit of the (Dead) Horse event.
Consumer research firm Neilsen found that in March 2011, a typical Facebook user was on the site for a staggering 6 hours and 35 minutes at a time. I suspect Sue Wallis spends considerably more time on Facebook than the typical user, or even the typical politican, who tend to be quite observant of commentary from other Facebook users and constituents. A selection of Sue Wallis’ Facebook posts taken from various sources reveal that any individuals who express concern for the environment, drug contamination in food, or animal welfare are likely to come under fire. Once Wallis tires of battling animal welfare groups on Facebook, “sics” her United Horsemen’s minions on other Facebook users she doesn’t like or who have challenged her. In another incident, Wallis exercises questionable judgement when she once again asks her minions to “reach out” to a woman who has slaughtered her own horse and crawled nude inside the carcass to pose for pictures. Some photos featured in the website even showcase the woman posing with the horse’s heart, as if she is about to consume it. Even posters on the United Horsemen’s page feel the distaste at her request.
Sue Wallis asks United Horsemen followers to “reach out” and support the right to commit horse necrophilia.
“Slaughterhouse” Sue asks her followers to harass people who disagree with her.
Sue Wallis asks Facebook followers to harass this email account holder (email account has been partially redacted for privacy)
One wonders how the whiny, finger-pointing Wallis can regularly travel away from her constituents in Wyoming, to further her own business interests in other states. When objection to her plans reached critical mass in Mountain Grove Missouri, Wallis was given a “get out of town card,” after she hatched the bizarre claim that the local YMCA director received death threats from “animal rights activists.” Of course, the Director himself denied that any such threats were made by anyone – he even told the investigating police that no one had threatened him. But this is not what the followers of the pro-slaughter faction wanted to hear, so the fabricated story of death threats was made to cover-up for the truth that they were kicked to the curb. Sue Wallis left town with the following advisory: “Discussion’s over. Make all the noise you want. We’re going into business.” Should we be surprised that Wyoming ranks 48th out of 50 states in terms of corruption risk.
Despite a published agenda for the radio program, Wallis’ snake-oil showmanship was exposed in a radio broadcast that featured, among other guests, Wayne Pacelle, President & CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), leading to her public meltdown and abrupt departure from the show. She claims that she was ambushed, which seems surprising – who agrees to speak on a radio program with the belief that there will be no other guests, and with the pre-program guest list posted online?
In a move that was not only ill-conceived, but couldn’t be more ill-timed, Sue Wallis pointed her slaughter house interests towards New Mexico, after failing in Missouri. New Mexico is the home of the infamous Chavez Feedlot, where horses are shuttled from many points in the U.S. to slaughter plants in Mexico. In March 2012, Animals Angels exposed horrible conditions there where horses that were rejected at Mexican plants, were returned to the Chavez feedlot and left to die.
Wallis then went on to urge the New Mexico Governor that “instead of charging (feedlot owner Dennis) Chavez with negligent mistreatment or animal cruelty, and trying to ruin his business…if these groups really cared about horses they would be honoring and applauding him, as we do, for providing care and sustenance to horses that would otherwise have no chance of survival.” Read the entire letter The problem is that Mr. Chavez has established a clear pattern of abusing horses, as can be seen from a USDA Freedom of Information Act inquiry. Additionally, he is now the subject of an animal cruelty investigation which revealed profoundly disturbing footage of severely emaciated horses, unable to rise, expiring on his feedlot without the humanity of euthanasia. Chavez didn’t provide “care” or “sustenance” to any of these animals in the video, as they were too weak to rise to eat or drink and remained prostrate on the ground. As if that was not going to be embarrassing enough for her, she then tried to discredit the investigators in her comments.
In another humiliating incident for slaughter advocates, New Mexico slaughter plant owner Rick De Los Santos, who has lost his license to slaughter cows due to humane violations, now wants permission to slaughter the quintessential flight animal – the horse. Mr. De Los Santos’ explanation of the reason for which he has had to lay off his entire staff at Valley Meats is not credible either, yet certainly pro-slaughter advocates are not constrained by adherence to facts. However, never one to miss an opportunity to promote a pro-slaughter agenda, Sue Wallis’ Unified Equine Facebook page boasts a recommendation of Mr. De Los Santos that makes me concerned for my own cranial integrity – yes, I’m about to *facepalm* yet again. Not content to merely make recommendations for those businesses and individuals who have been sanctioned or fined by various US government agencies, Slaughterhouse Sue is well-known as a politician who glorifies those who are employed in any capacity in the slaughter industry – including many kill buyers, lauded for sainthood. Someone should explain to her that many of these so-called heroes have incurred fines to the tune of $100,000 or more in the course of their saintly occupation.
Unified Equine Promotes a business that has been suspended for humane violations to cattle
The Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, has asked the USDA to deny Mr. De Los Santos and Valley Meats’ request for a permit. In addition, New Mexico Attorney General, Gary King, has stated that “a horse slaughtering plant in Roswell is a terrible idea. Such a practice, while not illegal, is certainly abhorrent to public sentiment, and I strongly suggest it be abandoned.”
More defeat dogged Sue Wallis and United Horsemen counterpart, horse-trainer Dave Duquette, when it was announced that the 2nd Annual Summit of the (Slaughter) Horse, a conference designed to convince the general public that eating pets is a good thing, would be “rescheduled” to sometime in January of next year. That’s not a rescheduling in our books; that’s an outright cancellation.
In 2011, Patricia Fazio, PhD, President of the Cody-based Wyoming Animal Welfare Network, filed charges last year that alleged that Sue Wallis, a Wyoming State Representative, attempted to defraud horse slaughter supporters out of $30,000 in a bogus truck raffle and that Sue Wallis had sponsored and voted on bills in which she had a financial interest. Although the truck allegations were dismissed the remainder of the investigation is still running at full throttle against the embattled Wyoming State Rep.
From a Canadian perspective, DesBarres’ association with Wallis and Kemseke earns him a blazing refutation as a representative of Canadian horse owners and horse groups. Together, the alliance of Wallis/DesBarres/Kemseke maintains that horse slaughter is necessary in North America in order to deal with the numbers of homeless or “unwanted” horses – the IEBA is a soapbox upon which they stand to deliver their dubious claims to an unsuspecting public. The reality is that slaughter is not an end-of-life solution, but one that fulfills a demand for horsemeat in the EU and Japan – a lucrative demand that has filled the pockets of foreign plants such as Belgian Chevideco, who apparently expect taxpayers to fund the costs of their business enterprises as well as any environmental clean-up that may entail. Typically, Chevideco invests no money of their own, and pay imaginative accountants good money to circumvent paying taxes while on U.S. soil; Dallas Crown continued to bedevil the town of Kaufman despite efforts by Mayors Paula Bacon and Harry Holcomb and the Kaufman City Council. By virtue of his connection with the IEBA, DesBarres and HWAC are actively endorsing and supporting individuals and businesses that have flouted the law, often with disdain for taxpayers. So long as the criticism is going to rain down on these three (and it surely is) I suggest that they consider building themselves an ark. The more I read about the whole slaughter enterprise, the more I realize I’m in need of some sort of prophylactic.
The IEBA is now offering a “Charter Membership” which includes, among other “benefits,” “Legal defense network and protection from activist attack.” Much of their mission statement and purpose was developed in lockstep with United Horsemen and the Cavalry Group, both extremist pro-slaughter organizations. Horse owners, please be advised that this group, in order to implement its business plan and charter, will stipulate that you have your pleasure horses and pets tracked from birth to death, all to satisfy foreign countries’ appetites for horsemeat, whilst lining the pockets of Sue Wallis, Chevideco, and Bill DesBarres and the Horse Welfare Alliance of Canada. The statements made by both Wallis and DeBarres constitute a logician’s nightmare. Neither Americans nor Canadians will withhold humane veterinary care of our horses just so we can ethically say they are “healthy and safe” to eat so we can sell their bodies at the end of their lives. Myself, I will never apply for membership in my provincial organization again, nor will I purchase liability insurance from a carrier that indirectly endorses slaughter. I will obtain liability insurance from my own insurance carrier. We, the compassionate horse people of Canada, must use our time productively to get Bill C-322 passed!
If you find any of the above information unacceptable to you as a horse owner or advocate, please be aware that the Horse Welfare Alliance of Canada is allied with the following business partners – please let them know that you hold them all to a higher standard than that maintained by an alliance with the Horse Welfare Alliance of Canada, the International Equine Business Association, and Sue Wallis:
that it looks like they can’t even figure out a way to deal with it – accept to call it normal and avoid the issue as much as possible.
It would appear that these slimy characters are getting away with carrying on this business because, it appears that, although most Canadians love THEIR OWN animals or horses, they are not truly “horse lovers” in the larger sense of the word. Or perhaps they don’t have a minute or two to consider the plight of the horses in this video or they don’t care to speak out against it, sign a petition, write to a legislator, or anything else. There are many around the world openly opposing and fighting against this kind of activity – apparently not many in Canada, where we slaughter the American horses because their population doesn’t want it – and don’t mind telling their legislators that – over and over again. Ultimately though, the business interests just won’t take their mitts and bats and go home. They keep introducing new legislation to re-open slaughterhouses – which we valiantly beat down – it’s a vicious circle and never-ending game, but it CAN be won if enough people care to do something about it.
heatherclemenceau 