• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Kentucky swamped with unwanted horses

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,792
Location
Big Muddy valley
Kentucky swamped with unwanted horses
17.mar.07
Associated Press
Jeffrey McMurray
STAFFORDSVILLE, KY -- Kentucky, the horse capital of the world, famous for its sleek thoroughbreds, is, according to this story, being overrun with thousands of horses no one wants - some of them perfectly healthy, but many of them starving, broken-down nags.
Other parts of the country are overwhelmed, too.
The reason: growing opposition in the U.S. to the slaughter of horses for human consumption overseas.
The story says that with new laws making it difficult to send horses off to the slaughterhouse when they are no longer suitable for racing or work, auction houses are glutted with horses they can barely sell, and rescue organizations have run out of room.
Some owners who cannot get rid of their horses are letting them starve; others are turning them loose in the countryside.
Some people who live near the strip mines in the mountains of impoverished eastern Kentucky say that while horses have long been left to roam free there, the number now may be in the thousands, and they are seeing herds three times bigger than they did just five years ago.
Anti-slaughter groups were cited as insisting that eventually, the market will sort itself out, and owners will breed their horses less often, meaning fewer unwanted horses.
 
Hate to say, "I told you so," but I told you so.

The loonies should be careful of what they wish for, because it looks like their dreams have come true. Sometimes a beautiful dream can turn into a starved out suffering night mare.
 
In response.

The Humane Society of the United States Responds to Rumor
of Horse Abandonment in Kentucky
Calls it an Act of Desperation from the Foreign-Owned Horse Slaughter Industry
WASHINGTON (March 16, 2007) – Recent claims that thousands of horses have been abandoned in Kentucky are unfounded. The Humane Society of the United States is calling it a campaign of fear mongering by a foreign-owned horse slaughter industry which is on its last legs in the United States. Proponents of slaughtering American horses so the French and Belgians can eat horse meat frequently alarm the public about wanton abandonment to raise false and baseless concerns about a proposed ban on horse slaughter for human consumption.

At the annual meeting of the Kentucky Animal Care and Control Association today, the organization's president, Dan Evans, surveyed the membership about the situation. None reported an increase in abandoned horse reports or sightings.

"The notion that Kentucky is overrun with unwanted horses is absurd," said Pam Rogers, Kentucky State Program Coordinator for The Humane Society of the United States, who was at the meeting. "We are a state of horse lovers, and we want to protect our horses from being butchered and exported to foreign countries where horse meat is considered a delicacy. These claims made by the horse slaughter industry's lobbyists have no basis. This is just plain rumor mongering."

The reports surfaced after a federal appeals court decision closed down two horse slaughter plants in Texas. Equine welfare experts report that the horses bound for the Texas slaughter plants are now being shipped to a plant in Mexico to be killed. The only horse slaughter plant still operating in the United States – in DeKalb, Illinois – is importing horses from Canada for slaughter, underscoring the point that there is no surplus of horses available in the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 92.3 percent of American horses going to slaughter are healthy and in good shape – not starving or neglected animals.

An overwhelming majority of Americans and members of Congress oppose slaughtering horses for human consumption. A bill in Congress – led by Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.V.) in the House, and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) in the Senate – would protect American horses from this brutal industry. . The House voted five times in favor of stopping horse slaughter in the last Congress, and the Senate voted to do the same by a two-thirds majority, but time ran out before the final authorizing bill could be enacted.

Claims that a ban will lead to the starvation and abandonment of thousands, however, are inaccurate. Horse slaughter was banned in California in 1998, and no corresponding rise in starvation and abandonment cases has been seen. Starving or abandoning horses is animal cruelty and subject to criminal prosecution under state cruelty laws. In fact, after California banned horse slaughter, cases of horse theft in the state dropped by 34 percent because there was no longer an incentive to steal horses for the foreign meat trade.

Many horse owners facing difficult times reject selling their animals to slaughter. Instead, they may sell or adopt them, donate them to a rescue group, or have them humanely euthanized by a licensed veterinarian. These are viable options currently available.

A recent trade article quotes a livestock auction operator: "I thought we'd see [horse] prices so bad that people would just turn their horses out on the highway because they couldn't feed or sell them, but it looks like that may not happen."
 
And before you make your decision, please know who Humane Society of the United States is......(not taking a stand, just making sure y'all know who is "rebuking" this story that was on AOL and Yahoo and the United Press)

Despite the words "humane society" on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it's not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.

HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a "humane society" in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn't operate a single one anywhere.

Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.

HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: "We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we're] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers." More recently, in a June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working on "a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it." A strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: "Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals."

Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an inside-the-movement watchdog newspaper) that his goal was to build "a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement." And now, as the organization's leader, he's in a position to back up his rhetoric with action. In 2005 Pacelle announced the formation of a new "Animal Protection Litigation Section" within HSUS, dedicated to "the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court."

HSUS's current goals have little to do with animal shelters. The group has taken aim at the traditional morning meal of bacon and eggs with a tasteless "Breakfast of Cruelty" campaign. Its newspaper op-eds demand that consumers "help make this a more humane world [by] reducing our consumption of meat and egg products." Since its inception, HSUS has tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping.

A True Multinational Corporation

HSUS is a multinational conglomerate with ten regional offices in the United States and a special Hollywood Office that promotes and monitors the media's coverage of animal-rights issues. It includes a huge web of organizations, affiliates, and subsidiaries. Some are nonprofit, tax-exempt "charities," while others are for-profit taxable corporations, which don't have to divulge anything about their financial dealings.

This unusually complex structure means that HSUS can hide expenses where the public would never think to look. For instance, one HSUS-affiliated organization called the HSUS Wildlife Land Trust collected $21.1 million between 1998 and 2003. During the same period, it spent $15.7 million on fundraising expenses, most of which directly benefited HSUS. This arrangement allowed HSUS to bury millions in direct-mail and other fundraising costs in its affiliate's budget, giving the public (and charity watchdog groups) the false impression that its own fundraising costs were relatively low.

Until 1995 HSUS also controlled the Humane Society of Canada (HSC), which Irwin had founded four years earlier. But Irwin, who claimed to live in Canada when he set up HSC, turned out to be ineligible to run a Canadian charity (He actually lived in Maryland). Irwin's Canadian passport was ultimately revoked and he was replaced as HSC's executive director.

The new leader later hauled HSUS into court to answer charges that Irwin had transferred over $1 million to HSUS from the Canadian group. HSUS claimed it was to pay for HSC's fundraising, but didn't provide the group with the required documentation to back up the expenses. In January 1997 a Canadian judge ordered HSUS to return the money, writing: "I cannot imagine a more glaring conflict of interest or a more egregious breach of fiduciary duty. It demonstrates an overweening arrogance of a type seldom seen."

From Animal Welfare to Animal Rights

There is an enormous difference between animal "welfare" organizations, which work for the humane treatment of animals, and animal "rights" organizations, which aim to completely end the use and ownership of animals. The former have been around for centuries; the latter emerged in the 1980s, with the rise of the radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

The Humane Society of the United States began as an animal welfare organization. Originally called the National Humane Society, it was established in 1954 as a spin-off of the American Humane Association (AHA). Its founders wanted a slightly more radical group -- the AHA did not oppose sport hunting or the use of shelter animals for biomedical research.

In 1980, HSUS officially began to change its focus from animal welfare to animal rights. After a vote was taken at the group's San Francisco national conference, it was formally resolved that HSUS would "pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture."

Hmmm seems maybe they do have the answer... they probably have enough money to take care of all the unwanted horses...


When John Hoyt took over its presidency in 1970, the Humane Society of the United States had 30,000 members and an annual budget of about $500,000. By 1994, HSUS's annual revenue had grown to $22 million. In 2003, that number jumped to $123 million, including nearly $3 million in investment income.

At the end of 2003, the nonprofit HSUS declared assets totaling over $113 million, including almost $16 million in cash and over $80 million invested in securities. It pays over $11.8 million in annual salaries, and another $3 million in employee benefits and pension contributions. When HSUS merged with the Fund For Animals in 2004, the group announced that its 2005 operating budget would be $95 million.

Raising money is Job One. HSUS will even adopt conflicting positions in order to satisfy individual patrons. Two HSUS donors once wrote to John Hoyt with very different views of the sinking of Icelandic whaling ships by Paul Watson's violent Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in the late 1980s. In one response, Hoyt agreed with the donor that Watson's actions were wrong, writing: "I am unequivocally opposed to any and all acts of violence in the pursuit of efforts to protect animals from abuse and suffering." In the other, he declared that Sea Shepherd's work was "indeed, a daring and masterful bit of James Bond on behalf of the great whales
 
I know it's been a while, but I just now saw this post. I am in Kentucky... Staffordsville, Ky, no less. Please let me assure you, we have no stray horses running around here. Lots of stray dogs, lots of stray cats, lots of stray deer, and a fair share of stray turkey... but NO, and I repeat, NO stray horses.
That's just plain foolishness.
Some people who live near the strip mines in the mountains of impoverished eastern Kentucky say that while horses have long been left to roam free there, the number now may be in the thousands, and they are seeing herds three times bigger than they did just five years ago.
"impoverished" Puleeeze. I'm not going into that right now, just trust me, those people they show on TV... You know, the ones living in the old falling down shacks, looking like they haven't bathed in about 6 months, with like 10 kids running around everywhere... they are not typical Eastern Kentuckians.
Thousands of horses roaming around free... In a way, that's a beautiful thought, but totally unrealistic.
 
Lady Flick said:
I know it's been a while, but I just now saw this post. I am in Kentucky... Staffordsville, Ky, no less. Please let me assure you, we have no stray horses running around here. Lots of stray dogs, lots of stray cats, lots of stray deer, and a fair share of stray turkey... but NO, and I repeat, NO stray horses.
That's just plain foolishness.
Some people who live near the strip mines in the mountains of impoverished eastern Kentucky say that while horses have long been left to roam free there, the number now may be in the thousands, and they are seeing herds three times bigger than they did just five years ago.
"impoverished" Puleeeze. I'm not going into that right now, just trust me, those people they show on TV... You know, the ones living in the old falling down shacks, looking like they haven't bathed in about 6 months, with like 10 kids running around everywhere... they are not typical Eastern Kentuckians.
Thousands of horses roaming around free... In a way, that's a beautiful thought, but totally unrealistic.

So Lady Flick could you tell us what is happening to the horses that used to go for slaughter in Kentucky?
 
Dekalb, illinois horse kill plant importing canadian horses? :shock: I'd like to see it i am not saying it isn't happening but with becoming the only plant killing horses in the US you would think when you make a monopoly they would be the only way to dispose of horses other than rendering plants. If horses are being basically given away at US auctions why would a packing plant go up to canada and pay top dollar for butcher horses then add freight to illinois as well as the hassle of a border crossing. I would think this horse plant wants to make a profit . I know a beef plant in SK is getting ready to kill horses on a contract for a US firm.
 
I am also from Kentucky and can say that I haven't witnessed the wild, turned loose horses but this ban on the killer market is easy to see. There are more poor and thin horses than I have ever seen (drought conditions have just increased this problem). Also, there are a multitiude of really cheap and even free horses all around. Killer ban is a bad joke and just more tree hugger types controlling the world.
 
troyinky said:
I am also from Kentucky and can say that I haven't witnessed the wild, turned loose horses but this ban on the killer market is easy to see. There are more poor and thin horses than I have ever seen (drought conditions have just increased this problem). Also, there are a multitiude of really cheap and even free horses all around. Killer ban is a bad joke and just more tree hugger types controlling the world.

Odd, I've never noticed that any of the treehugger, bunny kissing types who want to control the world are ever conservatives. :wink:

Oh, thats right, conservatives live in the real world, not the Disney make believe world, where all animals are fuzzy and cute and do no harm to any other animals or humans. :roll:
 
Cavel got another injunction to keep running sometime around July 27th but they had been closed for a while and already had laid off their 55 workers so the manager didn't know how long it would be until they started up again. I think the article said they did 1000 a week at their peak.. As far as them taking imports from Canada, I don't know if that is what they were processing, I do know a lot of the Southern Illinois horses went to texas however. I don't know much, if anyhting about Canada's horse meat business but if there aren't wany plants in the southeast of Canada than I could imagine those horses might be cheaper to go to Dekalb than out west. Than again, they very well could have plants in the east of Canada..
 
IL, the only ones I am aware of are in the prairies. And frankly I think they are only set up to process like 50,000 per year not monthly! ( again, I could be very wrong as I have no proof, just hearsay) Kentucky breeders will not be slowing down on how many horses they produce. While TB breeders are in a decline at the moment, it has more to do with the expense of racing. You really think these multi gazillionares care what happens when there ponies break down! That's the funniest thing I ever heard! It's entertainment and status only! The really classy trainers are no longer with us. The younger up and coming generation are bout as slick as used car salesmen! There is a reason I am working on getting my trainers licence! (3 months and counting.......)
 
That is what I thought Judith..... Yeah, Caval is a small plant really.. I mean 1000 horses a week is only 52k a year.. I don't know how big the ones down in Texas were, I would gues about the same. nope, people are not stopping breeding right now, whehter it is the gazillionare TB breeders or the backyard Appy, Paint, Quarter and Arab breeders around here. I drive by places around here with 7 or 8 horses, never see anyone there and they have 3-4 foals.. Find ot it is because there daughter loves having the babies around and they don't care if they sell the filly or colt for a 500 bucks loss, the kids/grandkids just love having them around.. Folks, these are some ugly arse horses that move... Ummm Odd.. I should now, we have an abandoned filly in your pasture right now. Want to strangle the owners but insted I will prbably load it and take it to a sale barn just to get rid of it and send a bil check to the the owner. Ill take thir dag goats in too.
 
I'll tell you what Jinglebob, I can usually tell alot about a person by some of their beliefs or views and most times, the ones who think all animals should have the same treatment and rights as a human are pretty liberal. A large majority of these people who think it is inhumane to slaughter a horse sure wouldn't want to be responsible for the upkeep or disposal of unwanted animals.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top