[DadaSeeva]

There's more to it.

[ElenaEvgeevna]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
There's more to it. Slow is correct. Horse meat is eaten in large quantities outside the US. Horses are slaughtered for consumption in those countries. It's not as trivial a matter as you seem to think. It isn't like banning the slaughtering of cats or dogs for human consumption.

[NKUDirectory]

Because the way horse slaughter is done is very inhumane. I guess they could mandate humane slaughter (and set rules on what that would be)... but this was easier.

[sallythetolly]

Animals should be treated humanely, even as they go to the slaughter. A 2 horse carriage shouldn't be jammed with 10 horses. There is no reason to shove them in pens that make them unable to move.

Even if they are being slaughtered, there is no reason treat them in such fashion before the cut.


As for adrenaline tainting the meat, the wormer used for horses raised for riding (ie, all of them that go to slaughter) is fairly toxic and would never pass USDA inspection. That's why they are shipped to Japan and France where they don't give a crap about that.

[reawnvam]

the only concern should be humane treatment and/or health concerns. I don't see why a particular form of slaughtering should be banned just because tastes are different in America than in other parts of the world.

It's because of humane treatment. Read the article.

[bWxNFI3c]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because the way horse slaughter is done is very inhumane. I guess they could mandate humane slaughter (and set rules on what that would be)... but this was easier. A total red herring. The slaughter of horses is regulated by the USDA, just as it is for every other livestock in America.

This is an effort by various tree-hugger types to prevent us from eating animals (at all).

Some comments by supporters of the bill:

Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y argued that the slaughter of horses is different from the slaughter of cattle and chickens because horses are American icons.

"They're as close to human as any animal you can get," said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C. Yeah right

I love this "Proponents include the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the biggest horse doctors' group."

Gee, I wonder why?

Cost for euthanizing horse (which would then have to be discarded) $300 X 90000 horses.

[markphata]

Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y argued that the slaughter of horses is different from the slaughter of cattle and chickens because horses are American icons.

"They're as close to human as any animal you can get," said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C. Yup. I was right on.

[MortgFinsJohnQ]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


No, the reason to be humane is so the animal doesn't suffer, not to "maximize yield of the meat". So it'd be ok to torture the horse since they are merely a commodity at that point?
This is irrelevant because healthy animals produce more meat and are healthier for human consumption. Healthier animals are animals that are better fed (with grass or organic feed, not animal feed), not put under stressful conditions (because stressed animals do not develop lean tissue), and animals that have room to move around.

Most "factory" farm conditions are inhumane and also produce low quality meat. Those conditions should be banned.

The effect is that meat is more expensive and less profitable, but hey... I'd rather pay more for healthier, higher quality meat. And this shouldn't be a question of choice. It should be mandated by law... for the sake of the animal and for the health of human consumption. Both are equally valid concerns.

[movlabc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




No, the reason to be humane is so the animal doesn't suffer, not to "maximize yield of the meat". So it'd be ok to torture the horse since they are merely a commodity at that point? Issues of humane treatment are irrelevant as the most inhumane treatment of all is inflicted upon them namely, slaughter.

The only compelling reason to treat the animals as humanely as possibile is then reasons of economics, wherein treating them as gingerly and cleanly as possible yields the greatest amount of highest quality and safe for human consumption product.

Twisted around if more torturous means of handling the animals yielded higher quality and/or greater quantities of product by all means it would be employed. Or don't you eat milk fed veal?

Humanizing animals for slaughter is a game for wimps that never worked on a farm.

[annouhMus]

Originally posted by MrFun



You're very cold.

I can never support wanton torture and mistreatment of animals, no matter what the end result of the animal will be. You learn very quickly not to get attached to feedstock animals. Its business nothing more.

[Zhgpavye]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Wow... one guy thinks horses are close to human as you can get... that means they aren't treated inhumanely at all. Nope.
It means that the representative in question isn't being objective and isn't paying any attention to the facts. That person is simply voting based upon emotion and bias. Furthermore, the question of humane treatment is not really being addressed. It's about preventing a particular animal from being used as food, as Spencer indicated.

An intelligent person would have recognized this fact immediately based on that particular response.

[Kotyara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Which is why it enjoyed such widespread support. The majority of the House are all tree hugging vegetarians, right? This isnt even a good strawman. As for why it has widespread support, I dont know. Politicians support lots of stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons. I suspect that in this case they are as emotionally swayed as you appear to be.

Wow... one guy thinks horses are close to human as you can get... that means they aren't treated inhumanely at all. Nope. So the USDA properly regulates the humane slaughter of other livestock but not horses? Or perhaps you believe that no livestock is humanely slaughtered? Now where have I heard that before?

Perhaps because they care about the humane treatment of which the animals they care for? Vets tend to be very protective of animals if you hadn't noticed. No I havent noticed that and my family has had lots of business dealings with vets.

Why aren't the vets supporting different regulations or better monitoring if they're so concerned with humane treatment? Perhaps the ranchers should send the additional vets and disposal bills to the vets association.

[flienianO]

Originally posted by SpencerH
This isnt even a good strawman. As for why it has widespread support, I dont know. Politicians support lots of stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons. I suspect that in this case they are as emotionally swayed as you appear to be. Yeah, it was a pretty bad strawman by you. Most Congressmen aren't tree huggers and are pushing this.

So the USDA properly regulates the humane slaughter of other livestock but not horses? Or perhaps you believe that no livestock is humanely slaughtered? Now where have I heard that before? Two things. One, as Sava pointed out, slaughterhouses are for the most part inhumane to the animals and their standards should be increased, namely how many animals in an enclosure for one.

Second, horses are different than cattle who have been bred for slaughter. Horses are not bred for slaughter, which means they are decided less docile than cattle. They fight, they thrash around. Treating like cattle means they get beaten around to get them to do what docile cattle do.

Why aren't the vets supporting different regulations or better monitoring if they're so concerned with humane treatment? Perhaps the ranchers should send the additional vets and disposal bills to the vets association. They've been lobbying to do something about this for a long while. They probably realized that more stringent regulations and better monitoring was a no go (because of the costs inherant in such a thing would have to be taken into account in the federal budget).

[Ceakicknunk]

horse meat
dog meat
throwing away perfectly good meat that could be eaten

[PlayboyAtWork]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Why should this be banned? If people like to eat horse meat that means more beef for me. This is idiocy. QFT. And more pigs too

[Ephedrine]

Now I want some bacon

[MortgFinsJohnQ]

I prefer lobster. Boiled alive and only then do you put the butter on after the fact.

[Pvfcadbh]

And I had better get some quick, too! Before some lawmaker makes it public that Lobsters are actually quite close to humans, and starts passing laws restricting their boiling.

-=Vel=-

We should get the Shrub to do a speech about this.....I can hear it now:

....if we don't stop boiling lobsters, the terrorists win....

[BorBitExatini]

Sorry - we're talking about lobster now?

[Qnpqbpac]

Which is why it enjoyed such widespread support. The majority of the House are all tree hugging vegetarians, right?

The bill didn't have majority support amongst Republican representatives. It was the Democrats (78% voting for the bill) who pushed it through. Maybe it wasn't tree-hugging vegetarians who voted this ban in, but it was definitely politicians beholden to them...