If you guys are on Facebook I'd like to invite you to our group.


A raucous, irreverent gathering place for pro-processing folk to buck, snort, fart, and cavort, and delivery site for new HFA blog links!

http://www.facebook.com/groups/125531434226157/

We discuss a lot of different topics from off the wall silly to serious issues re horse slaughter and starvation. There is never any gore posted, just thoughts, views and ideas.

This is one of the blogs that the list owner has posted:

YOURS vs MINE ~ A Moment of Reflection
Posted on December 27, 2011
If there’s one thing to be learned from the polarization of the pro-slaughter vs anti-slaughter positions, it is that (despite the irreverent, goading Fartery that occasionally goes on here), each and every one of us shares in common the desire for humane treatment for horses, in their lives and deaths. Due to the many different experiences and ideologies involved in the respective camps, the definition of “humane” is one point of contention, as is horse’s “appropriate” relationship to man.

Let’s all lay down our swords for a moment and consider the question: does it make sense that anyone who has spent a lifetime, built a livelihood, and made their lives meaningful with horses– breeding, training, riding, competing, caring–would intentionally, purposefully choose an end of life option they thought to be inhumane?

The AVMA and AAEP deem the captive bolt gun to be a humane end of life option for equines, and all slaughter of all animals is regulated by the USDA. Numerous species of animals, large and small, are harvested for human consumption under guidelines for humane treatment; horses are no different. It seems to this humble blogger that one animal’s life is of no more value than any other animal’s life, other than what is bestowed upon an individual animal by an individual owner. Thus, end of life options are an individual choice to be made.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Your horse might be your friend, and no one would deny you that, nor would anyone deny you the right to choose the end of life option you feel is appropriate. Stories of chemical euthanasia gone wrong are plentiful. Your choice to utilize it anyway is your prerogative. My horses are working partners, but are first and foremost livestock. If I choose to process them and put them back into the circle of life, that is my prerogative.

The antis cry, “the eaters are after our horses,” implying some sort of bizarre collective ownership of all horses. Let me make it very clear that there are no “our” horses. No anti pays any part of my horse bills (nor would I want them to), no anti has ever been with me in the middle of the night with a foaling mare, no anti has ever been at my side when I had to have a horse put down. MY horses are not “OUR” horses, nor are YOUR horses “OUR” horses. You make what you feel is the right choice for your animals, and I’ll make mine.

No one is after YOUR horses, either, dear antis. There are numerous measures of horse identification, and your choice to not utilize them is just that: your choice. If your horse is stolen, and you haven’t taken precautionary measures to increase the possibility of recovery, it is your fault alone. Just because horses are particularly pleasing aesthetically, and have been romanticized by Hollywood, doesn’t make the horse processing industry any more predatory than other sectors of animal agriculture.

Cattle prices are at record highs right now, so you would think that “predatory” opportunists would be stealing cows left and right. Why is it that this isn’t happening? For one thing, you don’t hear of it since the vast majority of cattle owners brand their animals with an actual mark of ownership. No saleyard that I am aware of will accept an animal without proof of ownership. If someone wanted to steal something to make a quick buck, why would anyone go to the trouble of stealing a horse to slaughter, anyway, when the current going price of horses by the pound might barely cover the cost of fuel? It is also interesting to note that information from netposse and other sources indicates that after the closure of domestic processing plants, horse theft decreased by a mere .25 %. Yes, that’s only ¼ of one percent.

In a worldly context, the horse as a food animal is not by any means a strange choice. Some Asian countries eat codfish sperm and duck egg fetuses, and while those certainly won’t be on my menu anytime soon, I wouldn’t attempt to deny them to those who enjoy them. While Hindus won’t eat a cow, neither are they vehemently attacking those that do or going through a laundry list of attempts to end the production of cows for human consumption. Certainly Hindus don’t like that cows are routinely consumed by others that don’t share their beliefs, but they don’t, to my knowledge, try to paint the issue in different colors like the antis do. (Horses helped win wars…captive bolt gun is inhumane…no, wait…transport is inhumane…a horse slaughter plant ruins local economies (while plants for other species don’t?)…medicines given to horses are “poisonous” for humans and the big bad “eaters” don’t care…) Dear antis, let’s call a spade a spade. We know that the horse is your sacred animal, and it is your right not to eat them, but your “religion” is not my “religion.”

Antis argue that horses aren’t produced in the US with the intention of being consumed by humans, but again we come to the difference between YOURS and MINE. Beyond feed and care, what really constitutes “raising an animal to be eaten” vs not raising an animal to be eaten? 4-H and FFA members raise market animals all the time, develop relationships with them, groom them, show them, train them. Certainly, they start out with the intent to eat that animal, but that choice is strictly in the mind of the human, and if someone chooses to process a horse at some point in the horse’s life—does it really matter to the animal when that choice is made? And if someone in this country wanted to raise horses specifically for meat, just as numerous other species are raised to be eaten, why not?

Despite the picture painted by the BCAs that we “eaters” are thirsty for the blood of every American horse, being pro-slaughter is being pro-choice. It’s the acceptance of the reality that not everyone can afford euthanasia and carcass disposal or would even necessarily choose those options because of the unpredictability of chemical reaction in the horse’s body; that not everyone is in a situation where administering a swift end via a bullet is possible; that when money runs out, when rescues are turning horses away, when the only two remaining options are to abandon or to process, responsible ownership dictates that the most humane choice must be made. The GAO report, combined with PeTA’s statement that the closure of domestic plants was a terrible blight to overall equine well-being, should serve as a powerful wake-up call that it is time to move forward, to fill the gaps that the insufficient (and occasionally of dubious integrity) rescue network leaves open, with a humane, practical, financially feasible end of life option. That it will be humanely done on American soil under strict regulations offers peace of mind that the choice for end of life doesn’t have to be so very difficult emotionally or financially.

http://horsefartsanonymous.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/yours-vs-mine-a-moment-of-reflection/