Check it Out!
Re: RC: Re: Horse Savaging (CONTROVERSIAL RESPONSE)
In a message dated 3/14/00 11:22:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, Tivers@aol.com
<< But Lif, you voted for these people making the laws. They've concluded
tree huggers are too dumb to walk to the mailbox and back without
governmental supervision. >>
Actually, the CA anti-slaughter law was passed by initiative, and voted in by
an urban electorate that had no clue what would really happen in its
wake--NOT by the elected legislators. So can't blame any of the voters here
except those who voted YES directly on the initiative.
What happens in the wake of such legislation is that a) horses suffer
needlessly when people with minimal funds (or those unwilling to pay) allow
horses to suffer until they die instead of sending them to the canner, and b)
horses who once went directly to slaughter are now bought by "feed lot"
buyers who eventually sell the horses out of state through various ruses and
they still go to slaughter, but only after being bounced around from place to
place, exposed to various dangers and strange horses, and then take a LONG
truck ride through half a dozen states instead of a short one directly from
the sale to the slaughter plant. So in many cases, horse suffering INCREASES
instead of decreases. So much for the warm fuzzies, but then the bleeding
hearts that voted in this measure don't want to believe such things.
The other aspect is that in crowded areas such as southern CA, there is no
room to bury horses, so money must be spent not only for euthanasia but also
for disposal. With the density of the horse population, burial could well
constitute an environmental risk. (But then the feely-good people never do
stop to think if one initiative has aspects that would interfere with another
initiative...) And something that is not often mentioned is the
environmental risk to birds when horses are euthanized with standard chemical
protocols and are not immediately disposed of or buried--drugs commonly used
for euthanasia are deadly to birds (especially raptors, which most of the
same folks who voted YES likely feel are endangered and must not be damaged
in any way)--but once again, no one stopped to bother with such trivial facts
before rushing to the ballot box on this one.
I'm no great fan of horse slaughter, but at least in the days when there were
small, relatively local plants, it served a need while putting the horse
through a minimum of trauma. Thanks to politics-as-usual, we no longer have
that option in most places--so much for common sense. And while I'm not fond
of some of the stuff done in the name of Endangered Species, I don't see much
point in poisoning eagles, either, if the rendering truck is a day late.
Check it Out!
Back to TOC