...is to treat all things with respect, and humility.

Thanks for pointing out these things, the nuances which are the common ground.

@horseman

Hey - I do understand where you are coming from - and understand most of the issues. But the law does tell you what you can't do to your horses. While you can abuse and neglect them to a greater degree than what you can do to a "pet", you still are requires to treat livestock with a minimal of care, or face forfeiture and fines and sometimes prison.

You understand that changing status from stock to pet would open a can of worms for horse owners - and horse lovers - and the horses. Your approach is pragmatic - but a lot of posters are not aware of the nuances and just see the abject cruelty.

What I want is a moratorium on killers - or shipping them to killers across the border UNTIL we can put into place a better system of killing the horses. Just put more humane regulations in place and enforce them.

Why will not the kill industry put into place (and have enforcement) of humane practices? Those that take into account the differences horses have from other livestock that have for centuries been bred to be domesticated food sources?

They won't because it might cut into profits so we have this convoluted way of horse dumping.

I was the one who stated that when people try to make money off of animals the animals suffer. I stand by that however do realise that there are many dedicated ethical people who do just that - but a lot of people want to make a buck. So we have people that over breed in a down market, put into training horses that aren't mature enough who break down, etc. People aren't smart sometimes. This is what I meant by the animals suffer. With so many good horses out there, young horses broken down or not fast enough, or low grade poor quality horses have no place to go but to a sale barn - and out of the country.

Respectfully,

Another Colorado Horseperson

Having followed these posts, it is amazing the opinions which are presented as fact. Texas Aggie quite correctly clarifies the drug issue, and others. After forty years of ranching, here in Colorado, and having graduated from the university where Temple Grandin teaches, attending many of her lectures, it is clear that her opinion is pragmatic and middle of the road. Provide for humane slaughter, and avoid the horror of the Mexican slaughterhouses. Transportation already is regulated and new regulations for transportation will cure that issue.

What cannot be changed is the entrenched idea that some hold: their life view must be imposed upon others, and horse slaughter is abhorrent to them. Yes, that is fascist.

Buy all the horses, care for them yourselves (sorry, no federal funds allowed, Madelaine Pickens); (her deceased prior husband was one of the best race horse owners, and breeders, of modern times). As you raise the funds to care for all these horses, make your efforts public; you will need billions.

As for breed associations, the Thoroughbred people have a checkoff program at the time of registration. more efforts would help.

All of you who claim that there is overbreeding, and who advocate more regulation, have no inkling of what that regulation would require. Are you telling me what to do with the ten mares which we breed annually? Are you then telling the purchasers of our young horses what they must do with them? Are you willing to send us all a check each month in order to support those horses which you feel so passionately about? No doubt you intend to do so.

There is a line in the movie, "The Culpepper Cattle Company", where the young cowboy asks the old hand what his horse's name is. The waddie answers, "Kid, you never want to name something you might have to eat". Well, all of our horses have good names, many quite literary, many double entendres, and many with their lineage contained within them.

I'll not have any of you tell me what to do with any of these wonderful animals.

I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin and her hunter ilk would support killing horses for valuable dog food. Let's ask her. I'd support grinding up those who apply for hunting licenses for pet food. On the other hand, if the hunting license was for venal members of Congress or any other crooked politicians, I'd apply for one. "Kill 'em and grill 'em", but not for my dinner, thanks.

The article and a couple people have made the point that horses are treated with drugs on a more frequent basis than animals raised for food. This is true only of race horses and backyard pets. Neither of these is going anywhere near a slaughterhouse. The average horse gets treated twice a year at most for parasites and the only reason that there isn't a withholding time on the label is that no company wants to go to the trouble of establishing a withdrawal time for horses. The same anthelmintics are used in ruminants where withdrawal times are established so the risk of eating contaminated meat is the same, low to nonexistent.

The expression, "horse poor," has been with us for generations. It is what is applied to someone who owns more horses than they can take afford to take care of. With the recession, the rising cost of grain and hay and pasture land, the ever decreasing agriculture land, and all the rest of it, how can we prevent horses from suffering?

A dog that is lame can still be a pet. A horse that is lame, one of the most common ailments to affect horses, is useless as a pet or for riding. And many causes of equine lameness are chronic which means that they don't go away. You are stuck with them. And you are stuck with them for a couple decades.

Which brings us to the question of what are you going to do with the excess horses? The article talked about thousands of horses (72,000) that are sent out of the US yearly for slaughter. How big a hole are you going to need to dig to bury that many horses each year if they can't be shipped to a slaughterhouse? Would it be too much to ask those who feel that eating horses is a sin to be required to pay for all the excess equine population?