Thoroughbred Horse Racing

Article proposes horse slaughter plant in Kentucky

Thoroughbred Horse Racing
Run as fast as you can. Legal minds are collaborating to send you to slaughter in Kentucky.
“Since Kentucky has so many horses, and the number of unwanted horses is growing, why not construct a horse slaughter facility in the Commonwealth?”

This is a question asked by Jordan Stanton in an article entitled,”American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act and Its Impact on the Horse Capital of the World“, writing for the blog of the Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture and Natural Resources Law. This group is made up of “legal scholars, practitioners and students” according to its website.

Since the article is biased in favor of horse slaughter, I am going to give Stanton the benefit of the doubt that he or she is opening the subject up for debate.

I am not going to take the article line for line and refute all its false statements and interpretations in a single post. Instead, here are some — certainly not all — relevant facts about horse slaughter.

  • Based on documentary evidence from around the world, extreme pain and suffering is inherent to horse slaughter no matter where it is practiced or by whom.
  • Horse breeding is motivated by greed. Breeders flood the market with horses then complain about the state of the equine economy.
  • It is unreasonable to expect society to assume the burden and absorb excess horses horses resulting from irresponsible breeding practices.
  • Although horse slaughter has been banned in the United States, American horses are being sent to slaughter at the same rate they were when they were killed for their meat on U.S. soil.
  • The problems horse slaughter is supposed to relieve still exist.
  • Horse slaughter is immoral, and not a solution to the American horse industry’s self-imposed problems.
  • Although numerous restrictions have been put into place by the EU who receive American horse meat, horses are not traditional food animals and therefore not regulated as such. Horses receive a myriad of drugs — especially racehorses — which bans their meat outright from ever entering the human food chain.

Speaking of breeding, Stanton states, “The problem has led to unregulated breeding, which has further inflated the crisis.”

Most pro horse slaughter individuals express their opinions based on the idea that the slaughter of U.S. horses ended when the plants shut down in 2007. It has not stopped, it only moved. So Stanton may inadvertently have made one correct statement. Slaughter promotes over breeding which negatively impacts the horse industry.

No matter how many horses Kentucky kills via slaughter, it will not resolve any of the issues Stanton cites.

RELATED READING

When Horse Slaughter Comes to Town: Environmental Impact

When Horse Slaughter Comes to Town: Economic Growth, Employment and Community Welfare

When Horse Slaughter Comes to Town: Legal Implications

When Horse Slaughter Comes to Town: Opposition to Horse Slaughter

When Horse Slaughter Comes to Town: Alternatives to Slaughter

When Horse Slaughter Comes to Town: Conclusion

18 thoughts on “Article proposes horse slaughter plant in Kentucky”

  1. Got Bute? In America horses are not raised as meat animals. Even the wild horses are routinely wormed and vaccinated with PZP. Wait til that gets into the food chain–no one knows what it will do to limit the reproduction of humans (which might be a good thing?) 80% of Americans are against horse slaughter and the reopening of horse slaughter plants in the US. Watch the horse slaughter videos–it is not humane. It is not quick. The passport system will take years to implement–and is not fraud proof–ever. Until horses are farmed under strict guidelines, they should not be on the menu.

    Like

  2. I am so sick of people proposing slaughter as an option. There are 3 to 4 slaughter houses in Canada and there’s a HUGE problem there with starving and abandoned horses!! One does not relate to the other. There are still 100,000 horses being slaughtered each year. The lack of slaughter in the U.S. has not done one thing to make the horse industry suffer — save for those AQHA people who breed, and breed, and breed and who now cannot sell their horses. They glutted the industry — most going to slaughter are Quarterhorses and Thoroughbreds!!! What does that tell you?

    Like

  3. Oh sure, why not? Thoroughbreds are used, abused and thrown away. They are the prime example of creatures brought into the world only for humans to exploit them. I for one am sick to death of hearing about this country re-opening slaughter plants for equines. We the people of the United States do not want this. The answer to the problem of overpopulation of equines??????????????? STOP BREEDING THEM YOU GREEDY IDIOTS!!! How simple is that?

    Like

  4. As a small owner of appaloosa horses in Tn I find it so sad that most appaloosa breeders in Tn believe in horse slaughter particularly Kurt West who I quote horses are only livestock.

    Like

  5. Obviously someone has a closed mind about slaughter. Horse slaughter is wrong on all levels. It only promotes overbreeding by giving them a dumping ground for those deemed not a money maker. Wrong color,wrong sex,conformation not as good as it should be, too many to sell and then there’s the one who after winning the owner tons of money,lost the last race so now it is worthless. Horse owners need to be held responsible for their actions and stop treating horses as trash to be disposed of in someone else’s back yard.Kentucky ranks last in the animal abuse chart and that is an embarrassment we all need to work on. Kentucky should be a shining light to the world and esteem our animals ,especially horses and treat them with more respect then we do. Slaughter is not the answer period and sending the meat to other countries to be eaten by unsuspecting people is just plain wrong. We would be appalled at the thought of other countries sending us tainted meat,so what makes us any better? Stop turning a blind eye to the fact that our horses are poison and not fit to eat. Therefore making it pointless to kill them for their meat. Stop the over breeding and you will stop the downward spiraling cost of horses and it will bring the market back up.Horses are not trash,stop treating them like they are.

    Like

  6. I think he must be pulling someone’s leg. Bringing back slaughter plants in the US will be the last nail in the coffin of TB racing, so putting a plant in Ky would end it even sooner. No, breeders want slaughter plants out of site in other countries.

    Like

  7. If you look up Jordan Stanton (the guy proposing the slaughter plant) on Facebook, you’ll discover that he attended his high school prom just last year. He’s all of 18 years old. Not that an 18 year old cannot have an opinion, but it makes me wonder how much he’s really looked into it all and what level of critical thinking he possesses.

    Like

    1. Whoever he is and whatever his age, it seems pretty obvious to me he did not look into both sides of the argument, or decided to go the pro horse slaughter route. In any case, the opinions he is expressing are those of seasoned horse industry people. Thank you Karen.

      Like

    2. Advocates against slaughter seem to be sensitive to the issue about economic stimulation from horse meat. These animals are beautiful and majestic. However, with respect to the full circle of life, all horses, like people, cows, chickens, etc. will ultimately die. Jordan proposed a potential solution (now keep in mind the word potential because this is a controversial topic and clearly not black and white) where the horse capital of the world can be the ones to deal with this issue. He includes facts about transportation of horses hundreds of miles in packed conditions where the horses on arrival to countries like Canada and Mexico are already in a mangled state prior to slaughter. This is extended and unnecessary. Jordan addresses this point by proposing a plant locally where there is a large concentration of horses. On the other hand, horses, like any other animal subject and used for consumption have the ability to give nourishment to those who enjoy this delicacy. Some people are too sensitive and irrational to see the benefits that can arise from the use of horse meat. Slaughter is a strong word. However, with a careful attention to refined practices, the process can be carried out to satisfy agoraphobic, tree-huggers, other types of anti-slaughter advocates, while also promoting an economic market. Respect the birth, the life, and the death of a horse. And if the death is assisted for the benefit of feeding a hungry mouth, then be thankful for what this creature has given. Do not blame him because he proposed a solution that varies from yours. There are two sides to everything and just because you are adamant on yours it does not make it correct. Call it heartless if you will. Others will call it rational and beneficial while also being respectful (something that will come with humane, quick, refined methods of slaughter).

      Like

      1. LOL You lost all credibility when you referred to me (and 80% of the North American population) as agorophobic tree-huggers. Here’s a question for you, jeff. If North Americans don’t eat horse meat but you think it’s okay to ship it to other parts of the world where they do, how do you feel about shipping cats and dogs overseas? There are cultures that eat cat and dog meat. We routinely euthanize millions of cats and dogs every year because of overbreeding/overpopulation. Should we just ship them overseas because ‘the death is assisted for the benefit of feeding a hungry mouth’? On THIS continent, horses are pets. On THIS continent, horses are companions. If we start catering to a subculture on the other side of the planet, we are in big trouble. But then, you’re just in it for the dollars, right, Jeff?

        Like

        1. You lost all credibility when you failed to read “other types of anit-slaughter advocates”. Are you agoraphobic? Perhaps not. Are you a tree-hugger? Perhaps not. Are you an activist? It’s safe to say activists over sensitive issues can be grouped as individuals who stand for a cause (tree-huggers, agoraphobics who oppose slaughter for that reason, other anti-slaughter activists  ALL CAUSES). Often times, these individuals have problems with accepting the nature of the action. Why cut down a tree? For a useable resource to benefit humankind. Why question when we do? Because it takes from carbon uptake and promotes green-house emissions. Don’t forget about the squirrel that had to jump from one tree to the other. Plant another seed. As far as slaughtering cats and dogs, open your eyes. This happens everywhere for reasons other than product consumption or monetary gain. Regardless of whether or not the meat is consumed, the animal is still suffering. They are not bred for slaughter. Horses in light of the proposition in Mr. Stanton’s article, ARE NOT bred for slaughter. They are simply present. Do you wish to see this animal struggle, starve, and experience pain and disease until its final breath? The fact of the matter is horses are over breeding in the Commonwealth. Our economic state makes it difficult for individuals to care for these horses. They suffer. They roam and they breed. And the cycle continues. I am in favor of a proposition to localize horse slaughtering for multiple reasons:
          1. It addresses the inhumane transportation of these horses hundreds of miles to slaughtering plants internationally (Canada & Mexico in particular).
          2. It will limit the large surplus of unwanted horses to a point where over-breeding is hindered.
          3. If practices of slaughter may be refined, then why not if it’s more humane? Saying there is NO HUMANE HORSE SLAUGHTER like you are unequivocally the wisest say-all individual this world has seen is ignoring the future of slaughter protocol. This is why we go to school; to innovate our future.
          If you wish to adopt every roaming horse in the commonwealth as a “pet”, Karen, then be my guest. Your income must be remarkably high.
          I respect your opinion, Karen. I’m sure there are individuals out there who care equally as much for their pet fish that was inhumanely taken from the sea; or the cow on their neighborhood farm that they have grown feelings for as they hear it moo ever morning during their morning coffee. Your animal of choice is simply a horse. That is fine. But if you wish to be an activist on the issue, then YOU propose a solution to address over breeding, slaughter transportation (because, I’m sorry Karen, but it will happen as long as there’s a market and a surplus of unwanted horses), and more importantly, how the commonwealth is going to pay for it. I’m all ears.

          Like

      2. There is nothing humane, quick and refined about horse slaughter. Besides, the horse meat originating from the US contains substances banned from the human food chain.

        Local plants will not solve anything. The methods of horse slaughter in the US were never humane, will never be so and if you think so you are sadly misinformed

        As for who you refer to as “agoraphobic tree huggers” please refrain from such categorically unrefined rhetoric. By defaulting to this catch-all phrase of those who don’t have your beliefs you have defiled yourself and appear to be prejudice and without respect for others.

        Why do you expect us to accept your rogue opinions while you ridicule our intentions?

        Like

        1. Did I call you that? No. Those were examples of those who stand for a cause, whatever that might be. See the third subclause of the sentence “other anti-slaughter advocates”. And don’t listen to me if you choose not to. I will gladly listen to your plan both structurally and economically to address over breeding and inhumane transportation. You stand for a cause in which you propose no solution to the problems that HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. Is your happy ending, “yes the horse survived!” As it roams the countryside, starving, unattended, weather-beaten, and almost lifeless? PLEASE. You tell me what must happen. If our economy may be stimulated in the process- then why not if we find innovative methods of slaughter? Lets find a chemical where it can be done quick and painlessly while also safe for human consumption. This is the future Jane. These are also just propositions. Myself and Mr. Stanton are not passing legislature so come down from your high-horse (pun absolutely intended) and work with both sides to enact the best possible solution. Where would we be if Democrats and Republicans did not work together? Where would we be if blacks and whites still were enslaved by chains of segregation? The market will exist. The horses will exist. Some of which will regrettably be in pain. Some of which will be starving IF WE DO NOT ADDRESS OVER BREEDING and make care for these animals more manageable for their owners. Tell me:
          1. Your solution to the problem if you choose to stand for your beliefs and ignore the other side of the issue.
          2. Where do you see a middle ground between those willing to address the problem and those seeing the action of doing so as a problem?
          Thanks for your feedback, Jane.

          Like

        2. Jeff

          You are missing the most important thing about North American horses

          Phenylbutazone, Clenbuterol….need I say more?

          Like

  8. More Like fueled by Greed ……Once again we all have to pull together and ” STOP HORSE SLAUGHTER” no matter what state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  9. Knowing that 80% of the North American population is against slaughter, I am always a bit suspicious when some unknown writes an article proposing slaughter. I suspect they are fueled by their need for attention.

    Like

Comments are closed.