http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=12903
"NorCal Equine Rescue in Oroville, Calif., will offer a low-cost euthanasia clinic on Dec. 17 for owners who, due to economic or other reasons, are unable to care for their horses. Owners will be charged $25 for the euthanasia service, which will be performed by veterinarians. "Clinic participation requires owners to sign a release allowing the rescue to retain and place potentially adoptable horses. Horses that prove to be unsuitable for adoption will be humanely euthanized through the rescue's Final Act of Kindness program.
"'The clinic is designed to provide financially strapped owners with an alternative to bringing their horses to auction where they may not sell, or may sell a very low price,' said NorCal Co-Founder and Vice President Tawnee Preisner.
"The group plans to host similar events several times per year.
"For details, call 530/534-7742 or e-mail info@savethehorse. com."
Sad that it's come down to this, but better than abandonment or slaughter.
Full Version: Alternative to Slaughter
It boggles my mind. In my world that is grounded in reality, dead is dead. There are only two options; being dead or being alive. What is the difference in being killed by a vet or being killed in a slaughter plant?
Nature intended that all livings things will some how be consumed, either in their state of life or in their state of death. Isn't mass euthanizations of any unwanted species going against the laws of nature? Just how are the remains going to be disposed of when all these horses are put down? Nature never intended for any species to hidden underground or to be burned. Nature had a plan for the consumption and the decomposition of organic matter.
Nature intended that all livings things will some how be consumed, either in their state of life or in their state of death. Isn't mass euthanizations of any unwanted species going against the laws of nature? Just how are the remains going to be disposed of when all these horses are put down? Nature never intended for any species to hidden underground or to be burned. Nature had a plan for the consumption and the decomposition of organic matter.
NW, in my neck of the woods, euthanized or dead horses are hauled to a rendering plant, where, according to their website, over 90% of the carcasses are recycled - into all kinds of products: pet food, leather for various uses, tallow and the list goes on and on.
Yes, as you put it, Nature DID intend animals to be useful in life, or after life - a friend of mine keeps referring to "horses in the wild." Now, in what purposes are horses in the wild, after they have died, to be useful? Food for other animals, and scavengers, which Nature also provided to help keep the cycle of life going.
If your argument is a moral one; I'm sorry but I have to disagree too: we've seen the results of the anti-slaughter laws in the USA: unwanted or non-useful horses simply turned out to fend (and die) for themselves, "rescue" operations swamped, floundering because of incapacity to handle all of the strays and unusable animals. In my humble opinion, humane euthanasia is a much kinder method of dealing with these horses than even some of the slaughter plants which used to exist (and still do in some places.) And, this organization is still trying to save those horses which might be of use. While it's not ideal - I think it's the best of both worlds.
Apologies if this raises some hackles, but I'm not sure there really is a best answer. Idealism seldom plays through in this world - no matter how hard we work to make that ideal reality. The anti-slaughter group was playing on an ideal - they "won," but at what cost? We've seen those costs on this forum alone; and I question if we want that to continue? I sure don't!
I think quite honestly, that the status quo before the anti-horse slaughter laws were passed simply needed some improvement: cracking down on cruel transportation and cruel treatment in the slaughter houses would have been a far better solution than what we've seen because of the ban.
Yes, as you put it, Nature DID intend animals to be useful in life, or after life - a friend of mine keeps referring to "horses in the wild." Now, in what purposes are horses in the wild, after they have died, to be useful? Food for other animals, and scavengers, which Nature also provided to help keep the cycle of life going.
If your argument is a moral one; I'm sorry but I have to disagree too: we've seen the results of the anti-slaughter laws in the USA: unwanted or non-useful horses simply turned out to fend (and die) for themselves, "rescue" operations swamped, floundering because of incapacity to handle all of the strays and unusable animals. In my humble opinion, humane euthanasia is a much kinder method of dealing with these horses than even some of the slaughter plants which used to exist (and still do in some places.) And, this organization is still trying to save those horses which might be of use. While it's not ideal - I think it's the best of both worlds.
Apologies if this raises some hackles, but I'm not sure there really is a best answer. Idealism seldom plays through in this world - no matter how hard we work to make that ideal reality. The anti-slaughter group was playing on an ideal - they "won," but at what cost? We've seen those costs on this forum alone; and I question if we want that to continue? I sure don't!
I think quite honestly, that the status quo before the anti-horse slaughter laws were passed simply needed some improvement: cracking down on cruel transportation and cruel treatment in the slaughter houses would have been a far better solution than what we've seen because of the ban.
Are we back to the difference between life stock and pet? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my dogs and horses, but just asking the question:
For some perspective, let’s look at dogs and cats:
In China and Japan, dogs and cats are part of the food chain. So, should we end the lives of unwanted dogs and cats in a way that they can then be used for human consumption and ship to these countries? Is that considered dog and cat slaughter? However, because they are our trusted companions we choose to euthanize them or let them run loose or set them free in the country side where most likely they are shot by ranchers or farmers or starve at the hands of mother nature? How do we add value to their being?
What is the difference of handing the wild horses captured for “adoption” and those being handled for slaughter? How are they handled that is so different? Horses are moved down chutes which drive them into unknown areas. Why do we think the handing of wild horses for adoption is any different then domestic animals going down a chute for slaughter? I don’t know?
What about donating horses to universities to be used in their Veterinarian studies? Unusable animals can be used in necropsies to help educating our next Veterinarians?
There has been work done in the US due by Temple Grandin to build a human cattle slaughter operation that is human. This is done though the eyes of an autistic individual in the version of pictures to help the animal stay calm. Very similar to the way animals see things. Check it out, we have options.
So tell me, why aren’t we working towards a human way to take the life of an unwanted animals, I am talking all animas which has a value (consumption or study) to a human way of slaughter/end of live?
Are we focusing on the wrong cause again? I don’t know, I just want to ask.
http://www.templegrandin.com/
For some perspective, let’s look at dogs and cats:
In China and Japan, dogs and cats are part of the food chain. So, should we end the lives of unwanted dogs and cats in a way that they can then be used for human consumption and ship to these countries? Is that considered dog and cat slaughter? However, because they are our trusted companions we choose to euthanize them or let them run loose or set them free in the country side where most likely they are shot by ranchers or farmers or starve at the hands of mother nature? How do we add value to their being?
What is the difference of handing the wild horses captured for “adoption” and those being handled for slaughter? How are they handled that is so different? Horses are moved down chutes which drive them into unknown areas. Why do we think the handing of wild horses for adoption is any different then domestic animals going down a chute for slaughter? I don’t know?
What about donating horses to universities to be used in their Veterinarian studies? Unusable animals can be used in necropsies to help educating our next Veterinarians?
There has been work done in the US due by Temple Grandin to build a human cattle slaughter operation that is human. This is done though the eyes of an autistic individual in the version of pictures to help the animal stay calm. Very similar to the way animals see things. Check it out, we have options.
So tell me, why aren’t we working towards a human way to take the life of an unwanted animals, I am talking all animas which has a value (consumption or study) to a human way of slaughter/end of live?
Are we focusing on the wrong cause again? I don’t know, I just want to ask.
http://www.templegrandin.com/
I have questions about the work of Temple Grandin. I am aware that she claims to see the world as an animal being she is autistic. What proof do we have of that claim? Or are we just supposed to believe her because she said it? I have yet to see or hear any other psychologist saw if there is validity to her claim.
The closest rendering plant to our area is roughly 250 miles away. Euthanized animals in our area either get put in the landfills of some of the larger towns or are buried. I wish there was a rendering plant close by. Remember that animals buried are extremely slow to decompose and become abosrbed back into the ecosystem for future generations to benefit from. Cremation has a lesser impact to the environment than burial.
The closest rendering plant to our area is roughly 250 miles away. Euthanized animals in our area either get put in the landfills of some of the larger towns or are buried. I wish there was a rendering plant close by. Remember that animals buried are extremely slow to decompose and become abosrbed back into the ecosystem for future generations to benefit from. Cremation has a lesser impact to the environment than burial.
I just have a simple question to ask - is it more cruel to let an animal starve to death or send them to a slaughter plant? I know the conditions surrounding slaughter were/are not ideal, but what's the alternative? Hay prices have skyrocketed and it's getting to the point where a person has to be fairly well established to be able to even own and keep horses. I'm glad to hear that something is being done (euthanization) besides turning horses loose, but I still believe the slaughter plants served their purpose - there has to be an outlet for horses that are not useful.
Also, why, why is the term "humane" so often referred to when speaking of animals?????? Animals are NOT human!!!!!!!! Believe me, I love my horses(and my dog!) and as long as there remained any other possible way I would not send them to slaughter; but I could never put them above my family or other "humans" in my life. God created animals in their own unique way, but we get outraged when some horses are slaughtered while turning our heads from all the precious babies that are being aborted every day - isn't something wrong here?
My intention was not to offend anyone, but I had to speak my mind on this issue.
Also, why, why is the term "humane" so often referred to when speaking of animals?????? Animals are NOT human!!!!!!!! Believe me, I love my horses(and my dog!) and as long as there remained any other possible way I would not send them to slaughter; but I could never put them above my family or other "humans" in my life. God created animals in their own unique way, but we get outraged when some horses are slaughtered while turning our heads from all the precious babies that are being aborted every day - isn't something wrong here?
My intention was not to offend anyone, but I had to speak my mind on this issue.
NW, I don’t have any details or proof on how it works, that wasn't why I researched Temple. But sometimes we have to try something long enough to get enough information to then prove the theory. I do think the idea has some potential and sure can't hurt to try something new. If it works, fantastic, if not, well, then we find something else.
I became aware of Temple Grandin when I was doing research on Autism. I work with a few autistic kids when I volunteer at Therapeutic riding. I have picked up some ideas from Temple that has helped me with "my kids". So, for me, I am pretty happy with her!
I became aware of Temple Grandin when I was doing research on Autism. I work with a few autistic kids when I volunteer at Therapeutic riding. I have picked up some ideas from Temple that has helped me with "my kids". So, for me, I am pretty happy with her!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.