Horse Sense (more)
I don't usually respond directly to folks who comment on my posts, especially when those folks don't identify themselves and really truly especially when the commenter calls me unprincipled and tries to compare me with religious conservatives. But I am going to respond to "Don't Get it" anyway and forgive him or her for the tone of his or her post about the American Horse Slaughter Protection Act and my reaction to it. Don't Get it asks: "I don't get your objections (to the mass slaughter of our horses for human consumption). Are you against the use of horses as meat or do you believe that horses can be used for meat but should just be euthanized in a more human (sic) manner?"
I also want to respond to a much more polite comment from Horsegal, who wrote: "I have a rescue horse but I still don't think this is a good idea. My horse was taken away from cruel owners. Is that a better life then going to slaughter? Where exactly do you think these horses will go? I know how much money it takes to care for a horse especially one that is injured or older. Who is going to pay for the feed, vet, farrier, shelter for these horses? Are the folks that want to save these horses willing to fund the shelters needed to care for them for the rest of their lives?"
Here is my answer to "Don't Get it": If the French want to eat horsemeat let them brutally skin alive their own horses. If the Japanese believe horsemeat is a delicacy, let them shoot metal rods into their own horses' heads. I don't think the United States should allow the slaughter of horses for human consumption, period. I don't think we should allow foreign-owned companies to conduct their dark business in our country and I really don't believe we should be giving them tax incentives to do so. I don't believe that the three slaughterhouses operating in this country come close to humanely euthanizing horses (and there is a ton of evidence supporting my conclusion).
I believe that horses played a crucial part in the development of our country and therefore ought to hold a special place worthy of protection in our society. Governing is all about choices, about policies, about directing the rest of us in a particular direction. The Congress tomorrow has an opportunity to choose a policy that ends a barbaric, anti-American practice. I hope "Don't Get it" now does.
And here is my answer to Horsegal: Your concerns are valid ones and you have hit on the practical ramifications of what the new law would mean.. The end of the slaughterhouses will mean that people will have to take care of more horses. But there are three things you should remember. First, the legislation in Congress doesn't take away a horse owner's right to humanely euthanize his or her own horse. Second, horses today are NOT being slaughtered humanely by those companies. Check out this video if you don't believe me. And, third, the end of organized slaughter for human consumption might create a disincentive for breeders to expand their herds. Look, I'm not arguing that it is all going to be peaches and cream once the slaughter ends. I'm just saying that just because it won't be perfect afterwards is no reason not to do the right thing now.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
Posted by: kc | September 6, 2006 02:06 PM
Posted by: Dave, Freeport, Il | September 6, 2006 02:47 PM
Posted by: Sweet Louis | September 6, 2006 02:55 PM
Posted by: sirensong50 | September 6, 2006 03:50 PM
Posted by: oldhonky | September 6, 2006 08:58 PM
Posted by: Against slaughter for foreign markets | September 6, 2006 09:06 PM
Posted by: Don't get it | September 6, 2006 11:02 PM
Posted by: Janice Hess | September 7, 2006 07:13 AM
Posted by: Against slaughter | September 7, 2006 09:44 AM
Posted by: David Curtin | September 7, 2006 11:17 AM
Posted by: Dave | September 7, 2006 01:52 PM
Posted by: Jenny | October 1, 2006 11:16 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.