One More Thing--Anti-Slaughter
"Man commonly is blind throughout his life, my Faust be blind then as you end it". (Goethe)
I forgot last post one more issue in vogue that continues to trouble like the proverbial pea under the mattress. Most of us in horses probably prefer to leave end of life and quality of life issues to others or at least postpone consideration. But, with the anti-slaughter movement the subject is perpetually before us and bears discussion and attention due to the enormous impact on horses generally.
There are really two issues--first the concept of anti-slaughter and second the type of persons in the movement, for the latter sheds light on the former.
We have (from what I can tell) in anti-slaughter the usual group of unable to see the forest for the trees idealist zealots who both gum up our lives and keep our attention on important issues. More power to you if, stripped of financial motive, you have, however misplaced, true concern for horses. Surely with this small group the more logical among can find some common ground.
Unfortunately, most of the recruiting and pushing for anti-slaughter is coming from profiteers, which are also a fairly diverse group. But this ilk has one thing in common. Anti-slaughter is their abortion issue and they'd like us to keep those cards and letter, collection plates and Internet donations coming. You may instantly identify one of these ilk when you discuss the subject with them, for they will have zero interest in any discussion failing to conform to their narrow views. They've heard it all and already have answered every possible point in opposition. You may plug into the Tim Woolley/Alex Brown website and see what this ilk is about. Avoid posting anything viewed as pro-slaughter. Alex Brown will delete it.
Finally, of course, we have a third group consisting of non-horse or once upon a time had a horse type youngsters of all ages that feed into the line of crap put out by the profiteers.
The problem of "anti-slaughter" is one of misplaced concern. Most of these folks will grudgingly admit the need to end lives, but its the manner they object to. I have yet to be successful in pinning down any of these sort to actually discuss the relative merits of months and years of neglect and abuse compared to a few days of discomfort traveling to the slaughter plants. To these sorts a ribby horse with long curled hoofs trying to exist on weeds with its uncared for teeth, or a horse kept perpetually in a 10 x 10 stall in sawdust with two flakes of hay a day is "not" a problem.
There are probably a few facts that need to be taken into account:
1. I doubt the actual method of slaughter at the USA slaughter plants is nearly as gruesome as the anti-slaughter profiteers would have us believe. My guess--the animal killers, horse or otherwise become pretty good at their gruesome duties, and there's less actual suffering than supposed.
2. The question of slaughter transport is unfortunately a catch 22. Animals deserve minimum level of comfort on the way to the plants, but to give this might exceed the value of the carcass. You may figure this for yourself if you try to conjure up comfortable transport and the cost. This issue needs some work and thought.
3. Can science come up with a method of slaughter that is humane and would satisfy the non-profiteering anti-slaughterites. Surely this could be done.
4. Unwanted horses are like unwanted animals anywhere. They become strays. We then have a choice of horrible neglect or death.
5. The OTB or adapt a horse movement is a terribly inadequate solution in that probably in 75% of the cases the level of care is such that death would be preferable.
7. As much as any of us dislike thinking about animals dying, are large animal end of life issues best left to the professional slaughter houses, legislated into humane treatment as opposed to the proposed euthanasia stations that would probably be resisted by everyone including the vets.
Training:
Sun. 6/15. Off due to weather. We've had 6 meteorological inches of rain in the last week. We're declining to complain--see Cedar Rapids and Des Moines.
I forgot last post one more issue in vogue that continues to trouble like the proverbial pea under the mattress. Most of us in horses probably prefer to leave end of life and quality of life issues to others or at least postpone consideration. But, with the anti-slaughter movement the subject is perpetually before us and bears discussion and attention due to the enormous impact on horses generally.
There are really two issues--first the concept of anti-slaughter and second the type of persons in the movement, for the latter sheds light on the former.
We have (from what I can tell) in anti-slaughter the usual group of unable to see the forest for the trees idealist zealots who both gum up our lives and keep our attention on important issues. More power to you if, stripped of financial motive, you have, however misplaced, true concern for horses. Surely with this small group the more logical among can find some common ground.
Unfortunately, most of the recruiting and pushing for anti-slaughter is coming from profiteers, which are also a fairly diverse group. But this ilk has one thing in common. Anti-slaughter is their abortion issue and they'd like us to keep those cards and letter, collection plates and Internet donations coming. You may instantly identify one of these ilk when you discuss the subject with them, for they will have zero interest in any discussion failing to conform to their narrow views. They've heard it all and already have answered every possible point in opposition. You may plug into the Tim Woolley/Alex Brown website and see what this ilk is about. Avoid posting anything viewed as pro-slaughter. Alex Brown will delete it.
Finally, of course, we have a third group consisting of non-horse or once upon a time had a horse type youngsters of all ages that feed into the line of crap put out by the profiteers.
The problem of "anti-slaughter" is one of misplaced concern. Most of these folks will grudgingly admit the need to end lives, but its the manner they object to. I have yet to be successful in pinning down any of these sort to actually discuss the relative merits of months and years of neglect and abuse compared to a few days of discomfort traveling to the slaughter plants. To these sorts a ribby horse with long curled hoofs trying to exist on weeds with its uncared for teeth, or a horse kept perpetually in a 10 x 10 stall in sawdust with two flakes of hay a day is "not" a problem.
There are probably a few facts that need to be taken into account:
1. I doubt the actual method of slaughter at the USA slaughter plants is nearly as gruesome as the anti-slaughter profiteers would have us believe. My guess--the animal killers, horse or otherwise become pretty good at their gruesome duties, and there's less actual suffering than supposed.
2. The question of slaughter transport is unfortunately a catch 22. Animals deserve minimum level of comfort on the way to the plants, but to give this might exceed the value of the carcass. You may figure this for yourself if you try to conjure up comfortable transport and the cost. This issue needs some work and thought.
3. Can science come up with a method of slaughter that is humane and would satisfy the non-profiteering anti-slaughterites. Surely this could be done.
4. Unwanted horses are like unwanted animals anywhere. They become strays. We then have a choice of horrible neglect or death.
5. The OTB or adapt a horse movement is a terribly inadequate solution in that probably in 75% of the cases the level of care is such that death would be preferable.
7. As much as any of us dislike thinking about animals dying, are large animal end of life issues best left to the professional slaughter houses, legislated into humane treatment as opposed to the proposed euthanasia stations that would probably be resisted by everyone including the vets.
Training:
Sun. 6/15. Off due to weather. We've had 6 meteorological inches of rain in the last week. We're declining to complain--see Cedar Rapids and Des Moines.
posted by rather rapid at
10:50 AM
.jpg)
18 Comments:
1) Have you viewed any of the footage of a horse being slaughtered? If not, I suggest you do so and then repost your comments. The captive bolt was designed for bovines and designed to stun, not kill. Horse’s brains are set further back and the bolt doesn’t work on horses. They are flight animals and with their long necks, their heads cannot be restrained; something that is essential for the bolt to work. In the rare cases when the horses are stunned, they regain consciousness within 30 seconds and are fully aware of being vivisected alive. The CBC ran a segment last week at Natural Valley in Canada. They are seeing the same thing we saw in the domestic slaughter houses here. And what a coincidence, that’s where Cavel is now operating. Do you see a pattern?
2) Ban the transport and you don’t have to worry about this.
3) The only humane way to end a horses life, is by euthanasia administered by a vet or a by gun by someone that knows what they’re doing.
4) Yes, and slaughter does not prevent abandonment, abuse or neglect. Anyone wishing to send their horse to slaughter can still do so. This is one of the old and tired arguments used by the pro slaughter advocates. People that abuse, neglect and abandon do so with or without the availability of slaughter.
5) What do you suggest? How about owners taking responsibility for their horses? How about cutting back on the breeding? The AQHA alone brings more foals into the world than the number of horses slaughtered each year. Their foals counts are over 100,000 higher than the next highest foal counts; TBs. Do you not see a problem there? The AQHA would rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making donations to senators to block the bills, hiring professional lobbyists and bragging about their 5 millionth registration. How many of those 5 million have been slaughtered? Many TBs owners in the racing industry have joined forces and have started a retirement fund for TBs. Humane centers have opened that function more like shelters. If the horses cannot be adopted, they’re humanely euthanized. If we weren’t spending hundreds of thousands of dollars rescuing horses from the kill buyers, that money could be put to good use. There are many alternatives that we have recommended but when you’re dealing with people that don’t want to discuss anything and feel the solution to every woe known to mankind is to reopen the kill houses, it’s not easy to move forward. Why is it they won’t discuss or debate anything? Why is it they don’t have any solid facts to back their comments? Perhaps that’s why they won’t engage in conversation.
Ignore Pro Slaughter Ignorance Here are the elected officals that have not sign on yet. http://capwiz.com/compassionindex/issues/bills/?bill=9279391&cs_party=all&cs_status=X&cs_state=ALL
Vicki, thank you for putting your post on my blog. This states the anti-slaughter argument skillfully.
Since we care about horses, my thing is to define REAL issues. Ok about the bolt gun and the transport. I get it. But that's a completely different issue than eliminating slaughter houses. You can deal with bolt guns and transport WITHOUT eliminating plants.
I'm afraid I simply disagree that unwanted horses can be dealt with. I'm without any confidence in adoption or OTBs. Mostly I see neglected, uncared for horses that would be better off dead. Until you figure that one out, I'm afraid you have a very weak argument for any thinking person.
Bottom line, slaughter houses have their place, which is other than to say they should be in any way inhumane.
and, tommy, this belief that you can do an end run around horse people will long run prove a straw man. you may ignore the "pro slaughter (as if there were such a thing) ignorance". Can you ignore thousands upon thousands of suffering animals might be more relevant? I'd like to hear your "group" address that succinctly just once.
rather rapid, thank you for your response. I understand where you are coming from but since you are seeing those conditions, the argument that slaughter prevents those conditions, doesn’t hold water. Anyone that wishes to send their horse to slaughter can still do so. Same auctions, same kill buyers and same number of horses being slaughtered. Nothing has changed since the domestic kill houses closed. If slaughter prevents those conditions, how you could be seeing it? Why aren’t those horses going to slaughter? It’s because there is no correlation between abuse, neglect and abandonment to slaughter. Dogs are being abandoned and neglected. What dog slaughter house closed down? People are abandoning all their animals, not just horses. They are abandoning their homes. Is that the fault of the domestic kill houses closing? Do you think the economy might be the cause?
Let’s look at the slaughter industry. The number of horses being slaughtered is based on the demand for meat, not the number of available horses. When the demand is down, they slaughter less. In years when the demand was high and we couldn’t satisfy the demand, horses were imported to the domestic facilities. This information can be verified on the USDA website. The pro side contends the horses have no value and are unwanted. Since when do you get paid for something you don’t want that isn’t worth anything? Do you not see what the kill houses have created? They are paying people to be irresponsible. They are paying for the horses to keep them coming. They are paying to keep the breed and dump cycle going. They are not providing a service to rid us of unwanted horses. They are a business and buy what they need to fill their demand and they want to make sure that we can fill that demand. What do you think would happen if humane facilities started paying people to dump their dogs and cats? You would see an overpopulation like we’ve never seen. It’s no different with slaughter. As long as there is an incentive, it will continue. No doubt if the incentive was removed, the problem would be solved. There will always be, as there always has been, owners that do not care for their animals. It happened when the domestic plants were open, it’s happening now and it will happen when slaughter is gone.
I have a question that I never get an answer to. What happened to the 300,000 horses each year that aren’t being slaughtered? Whatever answer you have, that is the answer to where the unwanted horses will go when our horses are no longer slaughtered. If you look at the USDA stats, slaughter counts dropped from over 400,000 to under 100,000 in a few short years. If the pro side contends that horses are livestock, then let’s treat them like livestock. Where are the health papers and chain of ownership? All cattle require this. Why are they given drugs that are prohibited for food animals? All cattle must follow this regulation. You do realize that this would shut down the racing industry as well as the service sector (mounted police, etc.). Horses that perform, provide therapy, etc. would no longer have the necessary drugs to maintain their health. If they want them slaughtered for food, then lets treat them like food animals. Start following the regulations. Start giving horse owners the tax exemption that livestock receive on feed. Either they’re livestock or they’re sport, service and companion animals. Which is it?
Any reason why you didn’t comment on the AQHA?
Vickie-I've but 10 min, but my thoughts:
1. I am other than "pro-slaughter". This is hardly an either/or thing. I "am" pro-animal, however.
2. whether horses are livestock or something else is probably an irrelevant issue.
2. I've yet in my area seen a happy person who takes their horse to the "sales". Equating slaughter plant profit motives with the various reasons individuals have to put their horses in sales is a generalization that probably you are unable to make with accuracy, but a lot of your argument rests on this fallacy.
3. I believe people primarily put their horses in sales wishing the best for the horse. I'd doubt for 90% of them around here there is any profit motive at all.
3. Whether there is any increase in neglect due to the closing of the US plants seems to be an "unknown". The Blood Horse today said someone should do the stats. However, I know what I see in my area. Closing the plants or closing the borders will increase the cases of severe neglect and have a sublte and geometric effect on lesser neglect. The numbers will bear that out except to the Ostriches among us.
4. AQHA? we're simply on a different page--and that was my point that animal welfare here requires "us" who care about them to clarify issues. The issue of over-breeding and slaugher may be related but only tangenitally.
5. Here are the issues in my mind:
a. Why close plants if you're opposition is to transport and method of death?
b. IF closing plants increases animal neglect exactly how do you weight one against the other. Said another way, if keeping the plant open relieves thousands of animals of their horrors, why would you close them?
Too much smoke for my tastes in the anti-slaughter mantra. Its simple, which do you prefer--slaughter houses or neglect. And recall that I consider 75% of the rescue and OTB work as fostering neglect.
rather rapid, thanks again for responding. It's refreshing to actually be able to discuss the issue. Funny you should ask for statistics. The BloodHorse doesn’t want statistics. A study was done a little over one year ago that proved there was no correlation between slaughter and neglect (http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/features/horseslaughter-123.shtml). It was sent to them and they refused to publish it. Yesterday, John Holland published a second study with current data and also threw in unemployment data. The result was the same as his first study that they refused to publish. The new study was sent to them and I’m willing to bet, they won’t publish this one either. You can read it here: http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2008/06/085.shtml or here http://www.texashorsetalk.com/specialreports.htm. It's available on many other sites with a quick google search.
While I don't totally disagree with some of your comments, I believe you are way off base with your comments on the anti slaughter stance. I have never stated anything that doesn't have facts to back it. The pro side, on the other hand, can never produce facts to back their comments. As an example, when the ridiculous stories started circulating about abandoned horses, we started investigating the claims. We published the reports on-line and every one we investigated was false. We have the verified information from local authorities, copies of police reports, etc. and they still continued to circulate the false stories and quote them as examples of abandoned horses. What I have said about the AQHA is dead on. The AVMA is another organization that should be taken to task. All of their brochures to clients state that a horses life should only be ended by humane euthanasia administered by a vet. Why is it they sing a different tune in front of congress?
Check out the comments threads on articles about horse slaughter. The pro folks drop in, start ranting about closing the kill houses and then will never engage in a conversation. You ask a direct question and never get an answer. They disappear or change the subject. I'm not saying that I have never stated incorrect information but when I'm corrected, I don't keep repeating it and I am certainly not going to be embarrassed by not being able to back a comment I made. I was interviewed by a pro slaughter college in Utah for a debate. The student was pro slaughter when she received the assignment and after doing research was amazed at the misinformation given to her by her professors. I gave her all the info I had and told her to verify it before she used it in the debate. I told her to stick to the facts and you can't lose. When the other team hits you with something, ask for the facts to back it. Her team won the debate, hands down and was able to field all the Q & As after the debate. You can say the other team wasn't prepared but I firmly believe, the pro side has no facts and if they do, why won't they produce them?
I find it rather curious that the meetings that were held in DC this week were an all pro slaughter panel. Several from the anti side wanted to attend to engage in a discussion and they were refused. Why won't they discuss the issues with a balanced panel? What do they think they'll accomplish with all pro slaughter points of view? That speaks volumes to me.
i'd already (some time back) glanced at the research presented. decided that they were bending stats to support a position instead of providing an independent study.
I'm strongly of the view that there should be talk. Is it perhaps a bit like abortion where i'd see the possiblity of meeting in the middle. if anti-abortion would quit their religious argument that life begins at conception, and pro abandons aborition rights no matter what, you have no abortion after the first 2 or 3 months. Give the woman a month or so to decide and then no more.
with horse slaugher, it's (to me) a spacious argument to say the plants exist due to profit, which, of course is true. you compromise by eliminating the bolt gun and providing humane transport--ie. closer and more plants. the euthenasia thing simply will never fly, and without it you will have abused neglected horses, without a doubt. the only alternative i see is a national tax payer support rescue for large animals. Vicki--i'd want the zealotry applied to all animals. It's misplaced on antislaughter imo.
Rather Rapid, your comment that you had "glanced at" my research some time ago must have been in reference to my 2006 study, since the most recent study has only been released for a few days. I can see where you got your name as you must be rapid indeed if you saw where either study was "bending the statistics" at a glance.
I am an engineer and I love my discipline because it is by definition based on things that can be proved or disproved. This eliminates differences of opinion as being deterministic.
In the case of a study like the two I worked on, you can challenge two things, the data or the analysis. In your case you seem to be challenging the analysis or claiming I falsified or cherry picked the data. But I provided the full data set I had available.
You have at your disposal all the information that I had (it is published by the government), and if you lack any you have only to ask me for it. Run the numbers and find where it was "bent" as you put it.
The pro-slaughter camp is always talking about how the anti-slaughter camp operates out of emotion and not hard facts, but when we present months of research into the "hard facts" we are often dismissed without evidence of any kind. If you cannot provide evidence that we distorted the facts or the analysis, please refrain from implying we did so. I would not imply that you were lying in your posts without evidence. I am a professional and that is as serious a charge to me.
Furthermore, all the talk about profit motive on the part of the anti-slaughter camp is ridiculous. I, like most the movement, have never taken a dime for anything I have done in this campaign.
John Holland
I have read the article that Vicki posted and presume it's yours John Holland. Here is my reaction, and again, please understand I'd hardly lable myself "pro-slaughter".
I find the written presentation to be chock full of misanalysis, false premises, wishful thinking and inductive leaps. I see nothing whatsover scientific or persuasive in this "study". It is exactly the sort of political analysis, as opposed to scientific presentation, that essentiall says nothing, except possibly relating slaughter numbers as they graph year to year.
the inaccuracies are so replete and obvious to any student of statistics that it's almost silly to note them. i'll give but one where you begin with the premise "there is no way of knowing directly how many equines are being abused and neglected", placing into question ab initio every conclusion that's drawn.
additionally, for a study of this nature i'd think the very first thing you'd want to do is lay out your hypothesis, make your definitions (it might be helpful if you actually define "abuse and neglect" since your study declines to look at anything but documented cases--if you want to find a few more go into most show barns.)
the conclusions are almost laughable. an e.g. "at this point it has been established that any increase in equine abuse and neglect "must" be the result of other facters than slaugherhouse closings". Huh? this conclusion after you've just taken such pains to point out that the number of slaughered horses remained the same after the 2007 plant closings. I'm doing one more post on my blog on the subject.
I have a question for Vicki-
Are the slaughter houses in Mexico and Canada more humane than those here?
None of them are humane because there is no way to restrain a horse’s head. Some plants in Canada uses the same method that the domestic kill houses used in the US and others use a gun. They are currently under investigation for cruelty and inhumane practices. It’s no wonder since Cavel (former DeKalb, IL plant) is operating at the plant under investigation. They’re seeing the same thing we saw here. Some of the plants in Mexico are just plain barbaric.
Since you seem to grasp that the plants in Mexico are barbaric, and that they still use an *inhumane* practice in Canada, why is it such a good thing that the US Plants have closed? Wouldn't you rather have them slaughtered here, than hauled to Mexico? Where they're sure to suffer a worse fate? I don't comprehend.
Streakin Iron, there is no way to humanely slaughter a horse. The degree of how inhumane it is in Mexico isn’t making the horse in Canada that is being vivisected alive, any less humane or the horses that suffered the same fate in the domestic kill houses, As I’ve previously posted, if someone would address what is really causing any issues that exist, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Why is it that nobody will acknowledge the over breeding practices of the AQHA? Do you realize that their foal counts each year far outnumber the number of horses slaughtered? EVERY YEAR their foal counts are over 100,000 higher than the next highest, TBs. The largest number of horses going to slaughter are quarter horses. Do you not see a problem there? In 2006 their foals counts were 144,000. Although I don’t have the final number, the last number I saw for 2007 was 125,000. Why aren’t you asking them why they are bringing all these horses into the world if they don’t intend on caring for them? Isn’t it common sense that you only breed those you can care for? You can’t assume you will be able to sell or place all of them. Are you advocating keeping slaughter to provide a dumping ground for them?
Don’t you see that the kill houses pay for horses to keep them coming? Since when do you get paid for something that has no value that you don’t want? Do you honestly think we would have all these “unwanted” horses if the incentive was removed? They are paying people to be irresponsible. They are paying people to over breed. Don’t you see that? They have a demand to meet and they are going to meet that demand by any means necessary. They slaughter the amount they need to meet the demand, not the number of horses available. When we couldn’t supply the demand, they imported horses into the domestic facilities. Surely you don’t think they are providing a service to rid us of “unwanted” horses?
Instead of writing about what closing the slaughter houses has done, why not write about what the slaughter houses have done to this country and the mess the kill house owners have created? They’ve been making fools of the US for years and laughing all the way to the bank.
I'd wonder whether the $500 you get from taking your horse to a sale covers the cost of raising the horse?
Seems if there were money in it, that you'd have horse farms like cattle farms. Unknown though. Maybe Vicki can tell us how much net profit one makes selling to a kill buyer. Vicki if there's a quarter horse owner that breeds with a view to making money at a kill plant, i've yet to meet that person.
Here's a problem, Vicki. You'd like to see the government come in and control exactly how many horses can be bred each year. Last I checked, we're free here in this country to breed as many horses as we want. I'd be in favor of not letting a bunch of backyard, redneck, ignorant horse owner breed horses simply because the babies are cute, as they are often who ends up breeding a piss head that would sooner stomp you than get along with you. Hence, making dangerous horses.
As to the AQHA, I'm a member and a breeder; and people should be given a choice what they do with their horse when it becomes unwanted or unmanageable. I haven't read anywhere, that more than about 170k horses are slaughtered yearly. How many dogs and cats do we put down?
And I, like Rapid, am pretty sure, no one raises a horse to go to the slaughter plant. But who are you to tell me what I can and can't do with my personal property?
Streakin Iron, where did I say I want the government to step in? There is no legislation pending that will limit breeding. I would think common sense would take care of that. You are correct. You can breed as many horses as you want but with ownership, comes responsibility. Part of that responsibility is caring for your animals and when the time comes for whatever reason, providing a humane death. You are correct that you should not be told what to do with your personal property. Nobody wants to take away your property rights. Are you allowed to dump your car on the highway when you no longer want it? After all, it’s your personal property and you should be able to do what you want with it, yes? Children are your personal property until they are of age. If you decide you no longer want that child, can you just dump it anywhere? Owning an animal does not give you the right to abuse the animal. Property rights for the owner that has had his horse stolen and sold to slaughter, far out trumps the rights of the owner wanting to send his horse to slaughter. That owner can never get his horse back. You have a choice on how to humanely end your horse’s life or to rid yourself of a horse you no longer want. You just don’t want to avail yourself to those choices.
I stand by my statements on the AQHA. You can’t tell me there isn’t an overbreeding problem there.
I never said it was profitable to the owners. What I said was the incentive provided, gives them a way to dump the horses, get a quick $200-$300 and go right back to bringing more horses into the world. What does the number of dogs and cats euthanized have to do with horse slaughter? As I said, start paying them $200 for each animal they dump and you’ll see the numbers triple.
The pro side keeps bringing up the unintended consequences and the Armageddon upon us. If that’s the case and you want horses slaughtered for food, then let’s treat them like livestock. After all, if you want to send your horse to slaughter that means you consider them livestock. Reopen the kill houses. Make the owners sending their horse to slaughter provide health papers and chain of ownership. Let the owners figure out how they are going to raise their horses and maintain their health without the necessary drugs all horses are given because they are prohibited for livestock. All of those regulations are required for livestock so your horses won’t be exempt. After the pro slaughter advocates have gotten their wish, they can deal with the backlash from the racing industry because you are going to shut them down. Kiss the mounted police goodbye and forget about the therapy horses and the performing horses. They need dewormers, bute, etc., all of which are banned for livestock. You can’t have it both ways. Either they are livestock or they’re sport, companion and service animals. If you own a race horse, it is not livestock. Livestock don’t race. But if you get your wish, it won’t be a race horse, it will be no different than a cow and must follow the same regulations that are required for all livestock. I can’t wait to hear the NTRA, race tracks and the horse industries when you get your wish.
Rather Rapid,
You say "I find the written presentation to be chock full of misanalysis, false premises, wishful thinking and inductive leaps."
I understand. So basically you did not understand the study well enough to come up with anything vaguely resembling meaningful criticism and you offer scathing adjectives as a substitute.
Your one attempt at specific criticism is based on the beginning statement that there is no way of knowing directly how many horses are being abused and that given that admission you assert that therefore everything that follows is nonsense.
As you know, the study then went on to say that the best metric we have is the number of cases of abuse charged. Apparently you feel that this is an unjustified leap. I will pass your concerns along to the media. They regularly use the number of charged cases of rape, murder and burglary to assess how safe communities are. I know they will be devastated to learn that it is a useless metric.
A strong opinion is unfortunately no substitute for an ability or willingness to reason.
The premise of our study was to evaluate the contention that the closing of the plants had caused a "tsunami" of abuse and neglect. The study shows that slaughter was only reduced temporarily and was quickly replaced by exports, therefore it was impossible that it could have had an ongoing effect. Moreover we showed that there was no major increase in abuse nationwide over 2007 by studying the number of cases reported. That is hardly a leap of wishful thinking.
Show me one study from the pro-slaughter camp that gives anything more than opinions about the theory that slaughter relieves abuse and neglect. There has never been one.
Streakin Iron...
You will be delighted to know that the study clearly states that the current situation is causing more stress on horses due to the long distances they are transported and in many cases the more barbaric methods of slaughter. Everyone agrees with that. The only question is whether we go forward or backward.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home