I would be willing to wager that most of the posters here advocating "kill em, kill em all" have very little actual knowlege of horses, or any other stock animal. And they are just doing it for the image.

You can't haul horses the same way you haul cattle or pigs. They are different - physically and tempermentally. You can't haul cattle in trailers meant for pigs either. And you reveal your ignorance when you voice opinions that it has to do with coddling.

Try dealing with a steer and a horse - the only thing in common is their size and the ability to hurt you if they panic. Horses are high reponse animals - they can and do self destruct when frightened - cattle have more of a self-preservation response since we have bred them for centuries to be docile. They have to be treated differently as they are different creatures. You can't treat pigs the same as cattle for the very same reason.

When people set out to make money off of animals - the animals suffer - be that goats, horses, dogs, cats of mega litters of humans.

I think we do need to have slaughter "in house" because the current situation is appalling. It is not humane but it certainly could be. Its inhumanity says more about the people who are okay with it, advocate it, or just want to pretend it doesn't exist.

A lot of work has gone into the cattle slaughter process - we need to take the same approach with horses as well. The breed associations need to take action as well. But as others have put out there - they make money off the over breeding. A LOT of problems in the Thoroughbred industry would be reduced by merely pushing out the racing age from 2 to 3. The Quarter horse industry could do a lot by requiring a HYPP free test before registration. A lot of breeds should require meeting a standard for registration.

But people would not make as much money if they did that.

I've had animals my whole life. I currently have a variety of farm creatures and have had to put them down. I don't like it but it sometimes has to be done. But I would no more take my aged horse to a sale barn than I would my aged dog to the pound. Both had other purposes than food and relationships are build out of those uses. But even raising animals for the intended purpose of the food chain - you can certainly do that - it just might not be as efficient - someone might not make ALL the money as quickly as they want.

We humans use animals for food, for companionship, for entertainment - we have a responsibility to see that they are dealt with humanely.

And let's talk numbers - in the west where hay costs are high - it runs about 1200-1500 a year to care for a horse (you doing the labour and keeping them yourself) More if you board, less if you have pasture lands. Costs vary with location. But there is a cost - and an aged horse, or a horse that can no longer be supported - this is a real issue. Most of the people I know who have horses (and I know a lot) are not rich. Most would advocate slaughter here in the States IF IF IF it were done in a manner humane. But it wasn't - that was why the ban.

These thoughts are not out of a Prius driving latte drinking tree hugging approach to life - if we can't be humane - we are not fully human.

(Not that I have a problem with Prius driving latte drinking or tree hugging - just that trolls like to use that stereotype to depict someone out of touch with reality.)

People who want to use her advocacy of properly regulated horse slaughter for their own purposes should bear in mind that she believes animals have certain implied rights under the law. Her work has, in many respects, blurred the line between animal and human rights, and rightly so--the line should never have been considered clear. Lincoln, Tolstoy, and Gandhi never drew a clear unambiguous line between humans and animals either. No, other animals, even other primates, are not human. But neither are we, much of the time.

There are too many horses, dogs, and cats, because there are too many humans. The overpopulation of our companion animals is a minor side-effect of our own overpopulation, and can never be solved without addressing the root cause. People who can't responsibly control their own propagation are unlikely to do any better a job controlling the propagation of other species.

If we're going to turn horses into meat, we have to change our relationship with them. We have to de-sanctify them in our minds. And that will cost us. Maybe more than it gains us. Temple Grandin is simply saying, as she always has, that if you're going to mass-slaughter animals, do it as humanely as possible, with an understanding of their psychology.

But just remember, the line can be blurred in both directions. We devalue the lives of other animals and end up devaluing our own.

Daniel Manzanares, the livestock inspector in this artilce, stated in the Mountain View Times in June 2006, that due to drought and high hay prices, they were seeing increased cases of horse starvation. The US slaughter plants were operating then, so why weren't those horses taken to slaughter? Slaughter has never been the option for irresponsible owners who would rather starve a horse, and slaughter won't be the option for them in the future either. If anyone thinks slaughter is the solution to starvation or abuse of horses, think again. Just do a little research from the past and you'll find the same problems before were blamed on other issues, horwever, now they're blaming the starvation cases on a lack of slaughter. But according to USDA statistics, more US horses were slaughtered last year than were slaughtered when the US facilities were open. They might as well blame it on the moon.