RE: why prop 6?

[Beverly540@aol.com]

(Note: I apoligize in advance if this message was received twice--I got that
weird MAILER-DAEMON notice, so I recent the message. BFS) 
Heidi,
            You may be right. I don't know. The drug-induced death is the
 justification that was given for prop 6 in the first place. There is so much
 disinformation today I hardly know what to believe anymore about anything. 
            I did see with my own eyes on CNN about a week ago the "hooves-up-
 neck-slicing" scene displayed on my telelvision screen. It was displayed for
a
 few moments while the CNN reporters attempted to lame explanation of the
 proposition. I was shocked and have been haunted by the scene ever since.
           What is "captive bolt?"
 Regards,
 Bev Schlegel
 
 In a message dated 11/5/98 6:28:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, CMKSAGEHIL
 writes:
 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.< 
  <<  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.  >>
  
   >>