Back To Business
We've been arguing the horse slaughter issue in the 6/16 comments section and I have another reply from John Holland.
The subject was included here due to the importance I attach to it. It's encouraging that we have significant numbers out there concerned with animal rights however wrong headed in the case of anti-slaughter. These folks have shown they can get the attention of the US Congress on animal issues, and there are a lot of them. And, whatever you want to say about PETA that organization obtained agreement to end the veal crates by 2012, and maybe somebody will get on to the hogs and chickens. I'm encouraged there's some progress regards animals.
I'll answer John Holland's last comment (on the 6/16 post) simply that I declined to write a book about the flaws in the study. It is so obviously flawed, and you know that John, I deemed it unnecessary. But one last response to specific points.
"The best metric we have..." are hardly documented horse abuse cases. When your study starts out with an incorrect assumption I mentally dismiss the rest, even though in this case I combed through it. John Holland knows ab initio that documented horse abuse cases are few and far between and that he's going to get exactly the conclusions he's reached due to limiting erroneous assumptions. This we define as Jr. H.S. argument. Sorry.
But it still goes further. "We showed there was no major increase in abuse in 2007 (after the plants closed)." What is the point of this? BFD since your same study suggests that virtually the same number of horses were going to slaughter across borders. All the study proves is that the same number of horses were slaughtered before and after and that (duh!) "documented" (i.e. criminal, legal) cases of abuse thus failed to increase. And, never mind that the type and nature of the documented cases might have changed
Here's the question that research should address: does eliminating slaughter plants (all of them) increase abuse, documented or un.
So, perhaps your study aids in wiping out the perception that horses are being set free all over the place and because the plants closed the headlines were incorrect. But, that's all it does because of the false premises involved in the study. John you may fool a few, but doubt you re going to have much impact with this sort of stuff. Should you decide to approach the issue honestly, then maybe we can talk.
That will do it for me for horse slaughter on the blog. I'll continue to be concerned of course, but, tomorrow the blog gets back to the current subject, the 2009 Derby!
Training:
Sat. 6/21: Back at it after the off day. Art did .8 miles tack with about .25 miles gallop. Nob's struggling now to get lead changes. The two year old unlike Art last year is big enough, and we can go right on with him. He had his 12th session with Nob up--8 min. walk, and it went well. Both horses did a very snappy series of 2f riderless sprints, probably 5 or 6 total.
The subject was included here due to the importance I attach to it. It's encouraging that we have significant numbers out there concerned with animal rights however wrong headed in the case of anti-slaughter. These folks have shown they can get the attention of the US Congress on animal issues, and there are a lot of them. And, whatever you want to say about PETA that organization obtained agreement to end the veal crates by 2012, and maybe somebody will get on to the hogs and chickens. I'm encouraged there's some progress regards animals.
I'll answer John Holland's last comment (on the 6/16 post) simply that I declined to write a book about the flaws in the study. It is so obviously flawed, and you know that John, I deemed it unnecessary. But one last response to specific points.
"The best metric we have..." are hardly documented horse abuse cases. When your study starts out with an incorrect assumption I mentally dismiss the rest, even though in this case I combed through it. John Holland knows ab initio that documented horse abuse cases are few and far between and that he's going to get exactly the conclusions he's reached due to limiting erroneous assumptions. This we define as Jr. H.S. argument. Sorry.
But it still goes further. "We showed there was no major increase in abuse in 2007 (after the plants closed)." What is the point of this? BFD since your same study suggests that virtually the same number of horses were going to slaughter across borders. All the study proves is that the same number of horses were slaughtered before and after and that (duh!) "documented" (i.e. criminal, legal) cases of abuse thus failed to increase. And, never mind that the type and nature of the documented cases might have changed
Here's the question that research should address: does eliminating slaughter plants (all of them) increase abuse, documented or un.
So, perhaps your study aids in wiping out the perception that horses are being set free all over the place and because the plants closed the headlines were incorrect. But, that's all it does because of the false premises involved in the study. John you may fool a few, but doubt you re going to have much impact with this sort of stuff. Should you decide to approach the issue honestly, then maybe we can talk.
That will do it for me for horse slaughter on the blog. I'll continue to be concerned of course, but, tomorrow the blog gets back to the current subject, the 2009 Derby!
Training:
Sat. 6/21: Back at it after the off day. Art did .8 miles tack with about .25 miles gallop. Nob's struggling now to get lead changes. The two year old unlike Art last year is big enough, and we can go right on with him. He had his 12th session with Nob up--8 min. walk, and it went well. Both horses did a very snappy series of 2f riderless sprints, probably 5 or 6 total.
posted by rather rapid at
11:06 AM
.jpg)
13 Comments:
I am lost by your post. You talk about how starting with assumptions harms your argument, but you do the same thing and then proceed to rant is a string of pithy one liners. What is your point? Sadly, the horse slaughter industry has move the issue from facts and truth to emotions and spin. When did it become the norm to take animal welfare advice from the industry inflicting the cruelty on the animals? Weird.
it's a big topic anonymous. i'd like to avoid making it an "us" against "them" thing. it's horse welfare, as opposed to what you term the "slaughter industry" spin. there is no such thing as a slaughter industry or spin, if you own a horse. can this be made any plainer--if youre premise is--as Mr. Holland's research--that plant closings are without effect on abuse--how do you get there by researching only "documented cases". We all know you cannot, including Mr. Holland.
rather rapid, John Holland has spent months analyzing the current data. You, like everyone on the pro side will dismiss John's study. Where is your proof that it isn't accurate? You say the study is flawed. Okay, show us the correct analysis so we can see your results of the data. If the case isn't documented that means it hasn't been verified - you know like the articles on abandoned horses that haven't been verified. As he mentioned in his post to you, it is the same type of data that states use to reflect crime statistics. We can only work with the data that is available. If a case isn't documented, you don't know if it's fact or fiction. Where is the pro side's analysis of anything they say? Surely, you can't be saying that they don't have the intelligence to analyze the data. They have time to pump out false article after false article. Why not take that time and produce an article that's factual - that can't be so easily proven wrong? When they pump out articles of abandoned horses, how about telling the whole truth, i.e. their house was abandoned and so were all of their animals. Of course, they don't mention that because it has nothing to do with horse slaughter.
What does the pro side use to base their comments? False articles? Hearsay - my friend saw a horse that looked abandoned? Horses that wander off the property are not abandoned. Horses that graze at reclaimed strip mines that are privately owned are not abandoned. Horses that don't exist that were dumped on a farm are not abandoned. Article after article of fiction. Let's see some factual analysis or any kind of facts for that matter, to support the claims. We are accused of using emotions for our stance. To answer that accusation, we provide results from investigations, analysis of available data, information from rescues and what has the pro side done? They send bribe money to senators, pump out ridiculous articles portraying a tsunami of abandoned horses and it's all smoke and mirrors. Scare tactics that are as emotional as anything we've been accused of doing. Perhaps we should change our approach and ask that funding for jails be included in the AHSPA so we'll have room for the law breakers that are going to abandon their horses. That way, we won't be accused of not being prepared for the "unintended consequences" that the pro side keeps predicting but have yet to happen. It's been predicted with every piece of legislation that has passed, including CA. We're still waiting, years later, for the tsunami from the CA legislation. They predicted it when Cavel shut down. Here it is almost one year later and the same amount of horses are being slaughtered. Wrong again. Nothing has changed other than they're going over the borders. As soon as we have a victory of sorts, the tsunami articles start appearing. Not one of them has anything but conjecture and outright false information. Don't you think those ludicrous predictions and fictitious articles are getting a bit tired? And no doubt, with the Midwest floods that damaged corn and grain crops, we'll soon be flooded with pro articles that blame the shortage of feed and hay on the closing of the kill houses. It's actually becoming laughable and so very predictable.
Surely, you can't be saying that they don't have the intelligence to analyze the data or call our sources that we have provided to verify the information from the investigations. Instead, they state it's wrong as if it's fact and continue to pump out false article after false article. Do you think if you print it enough times, it becomes fact? Americans are overwhelmingly against horse slaughter. Perhaps one of these days, we'll see something that is fact based. The pro side isn't going to win anyone over with false information and scare tactics that play on people's emotions.
I can prety much say our horse bills will pass very soon. We dont have idiots in congress only Criminals that got caught with there hands under another mans urinals for sexual crimes like Senator Larry Craig. The Pro slaughter People should be proud of there representation. I feel sorry for Idaho's responsible horse owners as they are lied too by People who are profiting off registering and re-registering horses for papers. I blame other Officals such as he AQHA and APHA for never setting funds for retiring horses such as the race horse industries are doing now. I blame the AVMA and AAEP which they have taken an Oath to protect the horse and have failed and lied to the responsible horse owners. They knew Double Deckers were being used and they knew Texas Plants operated illegal until busted. They also knew Horses were going to mexico for a far more worse slaughter yet kept quit until exposed. Closing the US plants did not lead to horses going to canada and mexico it as always been going on just behind the American Publics back. As Obama says its time to clean house its time to expose and abolish horse slaughter and elected sellouts in office that fail to do what the American People say and only listen to business that profit foreigners that dont even pay Gross Income Taxes on there millions made. We will have our bills passed and all sellouts and cry babies can take that to the bank..
vicki you sound way to smart to believe there will be no surplus horse problem if as Trevino opines the bills will pass. my supposition is that cooler heads will prevail, but, we'll see.
Arguing the benefits of horse slaughter under the guise of it being a humane solution to the hoaxes being propagated by the pro-slaughter movement is utterly ridiculous. There are no facts or cases substantiating either excuse being put forth by the pro-slaughter faction is now being recognized by our legislators for what it is-a lie. It is easy to point the finger at the anti-slaughter people and cry "emotion"; however, how emotional is it when we are proposing funding for humane euthanasia as opposed to slaughter. We are not bleeding heart animal activists, we just want the pain, torture, and brutality to stop. Slaughter is not an effective means of ANYTHING. All it does is reward irresponsibility with an easy dumping ground for a few bucks in their pocket.
rather rapid, I didn’t say there wouldn’t be surplus. There will be always be surplus and there will always be abuse. The key is how you handle it and minimize it. Slaughter will not eliminate it, it perpetuates it. History has proven the industry can right itself. When the slaughter counts dropped from over 400,000 to under 100,000 in a few short years, the 300,000 excess horses not slaughtered each year, were absorbed. Of course, the economy is different now so there is that added burden. People need to adjust and that means curtailing the breeding. If there is a surplus, a major driver is excessive breeding. That needs to be brought under control. Vets and the industry need to educate horse owners. There will always be those that will do as they please but that’s usually the exception, not the norm. Breeders are intelligent enough to know if there are less horses, the value will increase especially if they breed for quality instead of quantity. Just think, if the quarter horse breeding was cut in half, that’s at least 60,000 less horses per year and still 40,000 more than TBs. If you look at the slaughter counts, which I believe at are around 77,000, look at the dent that makes. Take away the horses that are stolen and the amount left is quite manageable and could be absorbed by rescues, new owners and the new humane facilities. I’ve seen counts of the stolen horses going to slaughter between 20,000 and 50,000. I don’t know if it’s an accurate range because the kill houses never checked ownership. We know there are stolen horses going to slaughter from owners that sold their horses at auction and when they discovered what happened, tried to get them back but that was a story here and there. There is no accurate number so I don’t use the counts. I have no idea of who came up with the numbers or how they arrived at them but they can only be someone’s best guess – based on what, I don’t know!
There are many alternatives, people just need to discuss them and solve the issues together.
Amen Vicki!!!!
i'm avoiding comment on overbreeding, and will simply state that shuffling unwanted horses to substandard care is exactly what i'd hope to avoid. "absorbing" unwanted horses is the crux of the problem. believe, in terms of care, that is where the argument goes wrong. i've tried to make that present "level of care" as an issue without any apparent impact or response.
rather rapid, I’m curious why you don’t want to comment on over breeding since it is as the heart of the surplus issue. No doubt there are unwanted horses, especially in the disposable society we live in. But you can’t assume every horse going to slaughter is unwanted. The stolen are not unwanted. The horses that were lost to potential owners that were outbid by the kill buyers are not unwanted. You don’t know that the horses that breeders dump because they don’t meet the confirmation they hoped to achieve, are unwanted. The owners don’t give the horse a chance to go to a new owner. It’s much easier to dump them and breed more.
There will always be horses that are not cared for properly. We see it with slaughter available and we’ll see it without the availability of slaughter. I disagree with your comment on absorbing the horses. As I’ve mentioned, the industry has been able to absorb 300,000 each year that are not being slaughtered. There were no wild stories of abandoned or neglected horses or increases in documented cases. With the pro theory, we should have been overrun with horses for the last 8 years.
We are more than willing to discuss the issues but the pro side refuses. Case in point, the recent meetings in Washington DC. The panel was made up of all pro slaughter (except one person) and those from the opposing side were not allowed to attend. How do you address anything with only one side doing the talking? You have people like Sen. Larry Craig spouting off the ridiculous arguments, including the environmental issue. That is probably one of the most laughable arguments. For every 1 horse that is slaughtered, 800 die of natural causes or are euthanized. All of those horses were disposed of by their owners. Many buried, many rendered and I suspect some cremated.
How do you expect us to react to all the inaccurate information and lies? The federal ban is hurting horses. What federal ban? Scare tactics warning of a tsunami of horses running in the streets, environmental issues that don’t exist and the tanking of horse prices. You want to talk about environmental issues, take a look at how often Cavel was fined. Of course the horse prices tanked but it’s the economy. Slaughter is still available so how can the ending of slaughter be blamed? The breeders never cut back and people can’t afford to care for themselves let alone buying a horse. You saw this start happening when the domestic kill houses were still open but the pro side kept their mouth shut. They kept their mouth shut when the domestic kill houses exported horses to Mexico, Japan and Canada. Now they use it as an excuse as if it was something new. There were just as many cases of abuse and neglect when the kill houses were open. Not a peep out of the pro side. Now that everything has been exposed and is front and center, they are looking for excuses to validate slaughter.
I also find it curious that Americans are letting Belgium and France dictate the floor value of our horses.
Corretion - that was supposed to be 8 horses die for every 1 that is slaughtered.
vicki--its a great big issue--including the question of breeding. i wish you the best as you go forward, though i disagree intuitively with many of your points.
vicki--its a great big issue--including the question of breeding. i wish you the best as you go forward, though i disagree intuitively with many of your points.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home