Senior Contributor
Posts: 1,440
Registered: ‎06-15-2013

Re: What do you mean?

I have no problem with differing opinions, and can see your concern about meat mislabeling.  I think that is probably why equines were slaughtered in their own facilities, so no cross-contamination could occur.   Everything coming out of that plant, was for export, or predator feed for zoos.  However, those who say eliminating horse slaughter will reduce the 'cruelty' to horses, I disagree strogly.   Every horse that is now alive, is going to someday die.  For those not fortunate to die peacefully, they will have some amount of 'suffering' before they go.  I've seen people try to 'humanely' dispatch an old animal, and trust me, someone who is a poor shot, can inflict more suffering than can be described, much, much more than they would ever be subjected to on a kill floor.   One part of the unintended consequences of no horse slaughter, is what happens to the old horses?   Yes, you can shoot them, and bury them yourself, if you don't want to pay for the disposal, or leave them to die and become coyote feed, but how is that an improvement over a humane slaughter, and sale of the meat? 

If you object to the slaughter, I respect that, I'm just trying to explain why I think it is a good thing.


The one thing I DO take issue with, is your downplaying the export market, because it is 'only 42 million'.   To the owners and workers of the plant, that was their livelihood.    I am not going to downplay the loss of a legitimate business operating in the USA, paying salaries of people in the USA that generates $42 million that is legislated out of business.   If a business that generates 'only $42 million' does not matter, who is going to care if the day comes if you or I are legislated out of business?    I don't know about you, but I'm much, much, MUCH smaller than $42 million.


To shamelessly steal an idea from 'Ronnie', if you take $40 million here, and $40 million there, it can eventually add up to real money.