Re: Why Prop 6?

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-11-05 18:15:31 EST, Beverly540@aol.com writes:

<<  A horse killed for  *animal* consumption is supposedly
 afforded more humane treatment through the use of a drug induced death.
 However, a horse meant for *human*  consumption cannot be drugged and
 therefore faces a violent death by either a blunt force to its head or being
 strung up by it's back hooves before its neck is sliced open by a rotating
 saw. I believe it is the violent "hooves-up, neck-slicing" that Prop 6
intends
 to address.  >>

Animal feeds are subject to very tight scrutiny for contaminants such as the
drugs used for euthanasia, too, so no, the above statement is not accurate.
Death for slaughter for ANY consumption in most cases (be it equine, bovine,
or whatever) is by captive bolt to the brain in most cases, which is
instantaneous.  It has been awhile since I looked into USDA slaughter
standards, but last I knew, the above sort of scenario would have been illegal
by FEDERAL law.  State slaughter laws must be equal to OR EXCEED federal
regulations.

Heidi