Lawmakers are again trying to stop horses from being slaughtered and sent abroad for food.

The House adopted a provision Thursday that would prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from selling wild horses and burros to slaughterhouses. By voice vote, the amendment was attached to a spending bill for the Department of the Interior, the BLM's parent agency.

American horse meat is sold mostly for consumption in Europe and Asia, though some goes to U.S. zoos.

"Horses are icons in American culture," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "They took us into battle, provided us with transportation and even carried our mail."

"They shouldn't be sent to slaughter to be dismembered for overseas consumers," Pacelle said.

Defenders of the practice said slaughter is more humane than allowing wild horses to die of starvation.

"When you talk about a horse dying a natural death on the range, it's not a pretty picture," said former Rep. Charlie Stenholm, D-Texas, a consultant to the slaughter plants. "Having a coyote or wolf eating a dying horse is not a pretty picture."
(...)
Pacelle argued that horses can be skittish, making them prone to thrash about when they are frightened.

"They see other horses that are being slaughtered and they are terrified," Pacelle said.

Stenholm said horses are treated better than other animals, such as cattle and chickens, at slaughter plants.

"We do a pretty darn good job regarding the welfare of the animals that are going to be slaughtered," Stenholm said.

Am I the only one who would rather these efforts from the house be put towards regulating the slaughter industry, then trying to ban it. IMHO slaughtering animals is not cruel, it is the way they do it that I have a problem with - if they transported them with food and water, and they met a marksmen when they arrived, I think it would be better for everyone (including the horses).

Admittedly, i'm totally biased on this, but i dont care how much regulation goes into it - i dont think horses should be slaughtered for food.

just my opinion though.

It's simple -- you don't ride cows and you don't eat horses.

It's the cowboy way.

I've eaten horse. I was in Magadan, which is on the Siberian coast. We went into the only hotel in town, sat down, and the hostess/server/busperson (i.e. only employee in the restaurant outside of the kitchen) came to the table and said "We have horse." That was the menu. We ate horse. It was terrible - tough, gristly, pretty near tasteless. Probably a working animal that had outlived its usefulness. But it was a lucky day for anyone who could afford to eat in the restaurant, because it's not every day that you have access to meat in that part of the world. There was a wedding party at the restaurant the same day. Huge fancy dress, lots of drinking... They ate horse.

I think you shouldn't necessarily make broad sweeping judgements about rightness and wrongness until you've lived on the other side of the equation.



(And Bill59, plenty of cowboys ride cattle. I'm not saying they're sane, but bull riding is a very popular rodeo activity. So much for the pure heart and unimpeachable morality of the working man of the American West.)

I've eaten horse. I was in Magadan, which is on the Siberian coast. We went into the only hotel in town, sat down, and the hostess/server/busperson (i.e. only employee in the restaurant outside of the kitchen) came to the table and said "We have horse." That was the menu. We ate horse. It was terrible - tough, gristly, pretty near tasteless. Probably a working animal that had outlived its usefulness. But it was a lucky day for anyone who could afford to eat in the restaurant, because it's not every day that you have access to meat in that part of the world. There was a wedding party at the restaurant the same day. Huge fancy dress, lots of drinking... They ate horse.

I think you shouldn't necessarily make broad sweeping judgements about rightness and wrongness until you've lived on the other side of the equation.



(And Bill59, plenty of cowboys ride cattle. I'm not saying they're sane, but bull riding is a very popular rodeo activity. So much for the pure heart and unimpeachable morality of the working man of the American West.)

i could care less about the other side of the equation - eating horses is like eating dog... in my opinion its wrong, no matter how many people do it.

[/i]

Am I the only one who would rather these efforts from the house be put towards regulating the slaughter industry, then trying to ban it. IMHO slaughtering animals is not cruel, it is the way they do it that I have a problem with - if they transported them with food and water, and they met a marksmen when they arrived, I think it would be better for everyone (including the horses).

Haha, are you intentionally starting a controversial thread? ;) I guess it's more fun than the boring ones that are usually about.

I see nothing wrong with slaughtering horses. And I agree that the concern should be about regulating the industry rather than banning it. I don't care as much about the sending of meat to other countries as much as the fact that zoo carnivores across the U.S. eat horsemeat. From what I understand, wild horsemeat is much more nutritious than other wild game.

And come ON :rolleyes: about the "cowboy way." And for those who think it's acceptable to kill some animals and not others - an animal is an animal, whether you consider it a pet or not. Different countries have different standards of companion vs. work/food animals. That does not make any one people's views any more ethical than anothers. Now if you tell me you want to go start slaughtering endangered species for food, then likely I'll bite and say it's wrong.

But slaughtering wild horses is no different than culling deer or any other overpopulated species. At least in this case the carcasses get put to some good use, unlike most culled deer. You don't have to eat it if you don't want to! ;)

i could care less about the other side of the equation - eating horses is like eating dog...
Haha... I may well have eaten dog, too, while I was in China. :p Though my hosts there tried pretty hard to shelter my delicate American sensibilities from the harsh reality of a billion people scrambling to feed themselves in the developing world. (By taking me to the Beijing KFC, of all things... I dunno, but I might rather eat an animal that had been raised in a family with a modicum of sensitivity than on an industrial chicken farm.)

What about all those kids in times (mostly) gone by whose pets were the piglets, calves, and lambs on their family farms, ultimately destined for the dinner table? What about the institutionalization of that way of life into the 4H club, which still exists?

I'm sorry, at this point I'm only replying to be provocative, because I object so strongly to the kind of people who make "that's just wrong, end of discussion" type arguments. You are 100% entitled to your opinions about what is good to eat. I just don't think anyone has a right to decree that the rest of the world has to live according to their narrow viewpoint. (Remember, the proud American traditions of eating beef and pork are beyond abhorrent to quite a substantial fraction of the world's population - you might be offended if they started to weigh in on what goes onto your dinner plate.)

(And Bill59, plenty of cowboys ride cattle. I'm not saying they're sane, but bull riding is a very popular rodeo activity. So much for the pure heart and unimpeachable morality of the working man of the American West.)

I said cows. Bulls ain't cows.

Haha... I may well have eaten dog, too, while I was in China. :p Though my hosts there tried pretty hard to shelter my delicate American sensibilities from the harsh reality of a billion people scrambling to feed themselves in the developing world. (By taking me to the Beijing KFC, of all things... I dunno, but I might rather eat an animal that had been raised in a family with a modicum of sensitivity than on an industrial chicken farm.)

What about all those kids in times (mostly) gone by whose pets were the piglets, calves, and lambs on their family farms, ultimately destined for the dinner table? What about the institutionalization of that way of life into the 4H club, which still exists?

I'm sorry, at this point I'm only replying to be provocative, because I object so strongly to the kind of people who make "that's just wrong, end of discussion" type arguments. You are 100% entitled to your opinions about what is good to eat. I just don't think anyone has a right to decree that the rest of the world has to live according to their narrow viewpoint. (Remember, the proud American traditions of eating beef and pork are beyond abhorrent to quite a substantial fraction of the world's population - you might be offended if they started to weigh in on what goes onto your dinner plate.)


Let it be known, throughout all the land, over the mountains and across all the oceans, that I hereby declare it a moral and ethical atrocity to eat horses and dogs.

This i decree, on this day: 20th of May 2006.

End of discussion.

And come ON :rolleyes: about the "cowboy way." And for those who think it's acceptable to kill some animals and not others - an animal is an animal, whether you consider it a pet or not.

Yes and human beings are also animals. What about the Fore of New Guinea?

Horses are more than just animals. They're also friends and companions. I think it's wrong to eat horses for the same reason I think it's wrong to eat humans --- respect.

Of course I've extended the analogy to a ridiculous extreme, but I think there's a point in there.

Let it be known, throughout all the land, over the mountains and across all the oceans, that I hereby declare it a moral and ethical atrocity to eat horses and dogs.

This i decree, on this day: 20th of May 2006.

End of discussion.

:rolleyes: :laugh: :rolleyes: :laugh: :rolleyes:

And here I thought I shared common opinions with you. :thumbdown:

Let it be known that you are not the queen of the universe, nor do you have anything entitling you to state what is and is not moral and ethically justifiable for all the lands of all the world. In this context, you can state what is moral and ethical for YOU, and that's about it. Determining what animals are companions and what animals aren't is not within the realm of "universal morals."

You might as well be a tree-hugging vegan as far as I'm concerned with opinions like that.

:rolleyes: :laugh: :rolleyes: :laugh: :rolleyes:

And here I thought I shared common opinions with you. :thumbdown:

Let it be known that you are not the queen of the universe, nor do you have anything entitling you to state what is and is not moral and ethically justifiable for all the lands of all the world. In this context, you can state what is moral and ethical for YOU, and that's about it. Determining what animals are companions and what animals aren't is not within the realm of "universal morals."

You might as well be a tree-hugging vegan as far as I'm concerned with opinions like that.


wow. you are a serious piece of work. OBVIOUSLY my post wasn't serious, and if the scarcasm is lost on you, than i guess thats just too f'n bad.

chill woman.

Yes and human beings are also animals. What about the Fore of New Guinea?

Horses are more than just animals. They're also friends and companions. I think it's wrong to eat horses for the same reason I think it's wrong to eat humans --- respect.

Of course I've extended the analogy to a ridiculous extreme, but I think there's a point in there.

Yes and that's justifiable reason enough for YOU not to eat horses. But as kate_g mentioned, there are many cultures that would think it just as atrocious to eat cows and pigs. And those cultures are just as entitled to their views on the ethics of eating animals as we are. In India, where cows have been historically respected for their usefulness to humans, no one eats them. Here, where horses have been historically known as work and companion animals, we don't eat them. But that does NOT mean it is universally "not okay" to eat a particular animal. In *our* culture perhaps not.

With that said, I still have to again bring up the concept of culling wild animals. It happens all the time, it needs to happen due to overpopulation. Plenty of those wild horses that are rounded up every year are given the opportunity to be purchased by cowboys/ranchers/private owners. But those that are not... well, like I said, it's better to put them to some use than to just cull them.

wow. you are a serious piece of work. OBVIOUSLY this post isn't serious, and if the scarcasm is lost on you, than i guess thats just too f'n bad.

chill woman.

Well to me it sounded like you were blatently shrugging off legitimate arguments by kate_g by posting an immature and pointless message. This thread and forum in general is meant for healthy debates, albiet some that inspire some heated opinions. But your post was just a pointless jab at kate_g. If I feel the need to call you out on that, I will - and I did. In the same general scheme and sarcastic tone that you chose to reply with in the first place, I might add :)
Considering your previous post that clearly stated that you could care less about the other side of the equation - it's logical for anyone to assume you're more than willing to make universal ethical judgments on this topic. So there's no reason for me to have believed that you were saying it sarcastically or in jest.

Well to me it sounded like you were blatently shrugging off legitimate arguments by kate_g by posting an immature and pointless message. This thread and forum in general is meant for healthy debates, albiet some that inspire some heated opinions. But your post was just a pointless jab at kate_g. If I feel the need to call you out on that, I will - and I did. In the same general scheme and sarcastic tone that you chose to reply with in the first place, I might add :)
Considering your previous post that clearly stated that you could care less about the other side of the equation - it's logical for anyone to assume you're more than willing to make universal ethical judgments on this topic. So there's no reason for me to have believed that you were saying it sarcastically or in jest.

My post was no less provocative or thoughtless than any of yours... a monkey could have determined that i wasn't being serious. NOBODY talks like that, hence the complete obviousness of it.... next time i'll be more careful to spell it out for you.

Pardon me for introducing some humor to the issue.

I said cows. Bulls ain't cows.
But then... what about eating bulls? ;) If it's OK to physically abuse the males, and it's OK to kill and eat the females, but not the other way around... I'm unsure whether to consider this viewpoint progressively feminist or antiquated and misogynistic... :confused:

Edit: I feel the need at this point, given other posts, to make it clear that I was laughing as I wrote that. It was a good-natured jab at what seemed like a silly twist of logic. If wild horses and domestic horses are so similar that not wanting to eat the latter keeps you from wanting anyone else to eat the former, then I hardly think it's reasonable to make a distinction between one sex of the same animal being OK to eat (by virtue of not being ridden, which was the criterion for horses) but not the other.

Second edit: *Clearly* Bill was being cute with the "don't ride cows, don't eat horses" quip, and cute quips deserve a measure of artistic license. But when I challenged with the fact that some people do ride cattle, his defense was based on the sex of the animal, which was a laughter-inducingly fine line to draw in view of the difference between wild and domestic horses (the former never having been anyone's friend or companion, for one thing, and never having been ridden, for another). And I think it's actually steer that get eaten more often than cows, which makes the even finer distinction of possession of testicles the defining factor rather than sex, I guess...

But then... what about eating bulls? ;) If it's OK to physically abuse the males, and it's OK to kill and eat the females, but not the other way around... I'm unsure whether to consider this viewpoint progressively feminist or antiquated and misogynistic... :confused:


how exactly are we physically abusing the males?

My post was no less provocative or thoughtless than any of yours... a monkey could have determined that i wasn't being serious. NOBODY talks like that, hence the complete obviousness of it.... next time i'll be more careful to spell it out for you.

Pardon me for introducing some humor to the issue.

I disagree that your post was no less provocative or thoughtless. One-sentence statements of "this is how it is, so there" are neither provocative nor thoughtful.

Secondly, as I said, considering your disregard for the "other side," there was no reason to believe you were being sarcastic. And it's not true that no one talks like that, plenty of people do all the time... whenever they think they are in the absolute ethical right, no questions asked, which to me it sounded like you did.

So then let me ask you - if you were being sarcastic, then what exactly ARE your opinions on the original issue? Does this mean you do NOT think that you can make this ethical judgment call for all humans throughout the world? Because that would go against your previous statement:

i could care less about the other side of the equation - eating horses is like eating dog... in my opinion its wrong, no matter how many people do it.

I'm not trying to poke fun at you or be an *******, but I don't appreciate your flip responses, and I definitely don't think that said responses are thought provoking - just eyeroll provoking. I'm more than willing to have an intelligent conversation with you about this, but hey if that's not what you're interested in, I have no problem with that :)

how exactly are we physically abusing the males?
Haha... OK, *another* separate ethical issue. I simply meant that a lot of people think bull-riding is not the kindest of activities for a bull to be engaged in. Not the kindest for a human to be engaged in either, given the much higher rate of injury to the humans than the bulls. But at least the humans are doing it voluntarily.

Before anyone takes off with this particular firecracker, I don't have nearly enough experience with rodeo to make an educated judgement of my own, so I don't wish to be pigeonholed as a rodeo-hating activist for simply having mentioned the issue. :)

I disagree that your post was no less provocative or thoughtless. One-sentence statements of "this is how it is, so there" are neither provocative nor thoughtful.

Secondly, as I said, considering your disregard for the "other side," there was no reason to believe you were being sarcastic. And it's not true that no one talks like that, plenty of people do all the time... whenever they think they are in the absolute ethical right, no questions asked, which to me it sounded like you did.

So then let me ask you - if you were being sarcastic, then what exactly ARE your opinions on the original issue? Does this mean you do NOT think that you can make this ethical judgment call for all humans throughout the world? Because that would go against your previous statement:



I'm not trying to poke fun at you or be an *******, but I don't appreciate your flip responses, and I definitely don't think that said responses are thought provoking - just eyeroll provoking. I'm more than willing to have an intelligent conversation with you about this, but hey if that's not what you're interested in, I have no problem with that :)

Firstly, I clearly stated there that "in my opinion" eating horses is wrong. and i do believe that, and its not going to change. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and nobody, let alone me, is going to change somebody's opinion on a message board - hence the futility of arguments like these.

Secondly, my second, sarcastic post, was in response to kate's post that stated "I just don't think anyone has a right to decree that the rest of the world has to live according to their narrow viewpoint." - because nobody at that point had made any such sweeping judgments. and i thought this statement was completely ridiculous. So - i poked fun at it, and you lost it... oh well.

Haha... OK, *another* separate ethical issue. I simply meant that a lot of people think bull-riding is not the kindest of activities for a bull to be engaged in. Not the kindest for a human to be engaged in either, given the much higher rate of injury to the humans than the bulls. But at least the humans are doing it voluntarily.

Before anyone takes off with this particular firecracker, I don't have nearly enough experience with rodeo to make an educated judgement of my own, so I don't wish to be pigeonholed as a rodeo-hating activist for simply having mentioned the issue. :)


fair enough

n/m, I was making a non-worthwhile point here that I decided to abandon. :) Don't seem to be able to actually delete the message.

Secondly, my second, sarcastic post, was in response to kate's post that stated "I just don't think anyone has a right to decree that the rest of the world has to live according to their narrow viewpoint." - because nobody at that point had made any such sweeping judgments. and i thought this statement was completely ridiculous. So - i poked fun at it, and you lost it... oh well.

You don't at all acknowledge the fact that it may have been *your* words that were easily misinterpreted rather than *my* interpretations that are heinous. Obviously more than one of us thought you were making sweeping judgments, so maybe you should try to be more careful in the way you word things in the future?

And instead of making sarcastic responses to other people, why not just SAY "nobody at this point has made any such sweeping judgments." That might avoid others misinterpreting your thoughts. Say what you mean without being condescending to others and perhaps you won't elicit a defensive response... unless of course your goal was to elicit a defensive response.

With all that said, I apologize for drawing the wrong conclusions from your statements. But there's no need to be insulting to other people by being sarcastic and dismissive, or by saying things like "a monkey could have figured this out."

You don't at all acknowledge the fact that it may have been *your* words that were easily misinterpreted rather than *my* interpretations that are heinous. Obviously more than one of us thought you were making sweeping judgments, so maybe you should try to be more careful in the way you word things in the future?

And instead of making sarcastic responses to other people, why not just SAY "nobody at this point has made any such sweeping judgments." That might avoid others misinterpreting your thoughts. Say what you mean without being condescending to others and perhaps you won't elicit a defensive response... unless of course your goal was to elicit a defensive response.

With all that said, I apologize for drawing the wrong conclusions from your statements. But there's no need to be insulting to other people by being sarcastic and dismissive, or by saying things like "a monkey could have figured this out."

ok. you're not going to stand there and tell me what to do. maybe that works for you with other people, but not with me.

i post as i see fit - so do you. deal with the consequences - if it means you get into an argument, than so be it. i'm not telling you what to type into your computer, and i'd appreciate the same courtesy. fell free to disagree with things I say, but i'll be damned if you'll issue orders to me.

You don't at all acknowledge the fact that it may have been *your* words that were easily misinterpreted rather than *my* interpretations that are heinous. Obviously more than one of us thought you were making sweeping judgments, so maybe you should try to be more careful in the way you word things in the future?

And instead of making sarcastic responses to other people, why not just SAY "nobody at this point has made any such sweeping judgments." That might avoid others misinterpreting your thoughts. Say what you mean without being condescending to others and perhaps you won't elicit a defensive response... unless of course your goal was to elicit a defensive response.

With all that said, I apologize for drawing the wrong conclusions from your statements. But there's no need to be insulting to other people by being sarcastic and dismissive, or by saying things like "a monkey could have figured this out."


for the record - i'd like to say that i thought that dvm'08s post was obvioulsy sarcastic, and kinda funny too.

lighten up and laugh a little!

ok. you're not going to stand there and tell me what to do. maybe that works for you with other people, but not with me.

i post as i see fit - so do you. deal with the consequences - if it means you get into an argument, than so be it. i'm not telling you what to type into your computer, and i'd appreciate the same courtesy. fell free to disagree with things I say, but i'll be damned if you'll issue orders to me.

Okay, so who needs to chill out now? :) No one was telling you what to do.

I was simply offering a suggestion to how you may avoid misinterpretations in the future, but obviously you're not interested in that so I'm sorry if you feel I overstepped my bounds. But as you said, I'll say what I want to on here and you will do the same.
However, I did not by any means intend to "issue orders" to you! Seriously, I said I wasn't trying to be an *******, and I meant it. No need to get all riled up about it.

julieDVM, thank you for your input, and perhaps it was me who is mostly to blame for not seeing dvm'08's statements as sarcastic. Looking back on it now, can see how they may appear that way. I guess I was just working off of the previous statement about her not caring about the "other side of the equation." I assumed dvm'08 was closed-minded about this topic because of that statement, and perhaps that was a premature and wrong assumption to make.

Okay so I'm done with this now, I always enjoy a healthy debate but this is far from that. I guess discussing the original topic may now be considered beating a dead horse - heavy pun intended.

Okay, so who needs to chill out now? :) No one was telling you what to do.

I was simply offering a suggestion to how you may avoid misinterpretations in the future, but obviously you're not interested in that so I'm sorry if you feel I overstepped my bounds. But as you said, I'll say what I want to on here and you will do the same.
However, I did not by any means intend to "issue orders" to you! Seriously, I said I wasn't trying to be an *******, and I meant it. No need to get all riled up about it.

julieDVM, thank you for your input, and perhaps it was me who is mostly to blame for not seeing dvm'08's statements as sarcastic. Looking back on it now, can see how they may appear that way. I guess I was just working off of the previous statement about her not caring about the "other side of the equation." I assumed dvm'08 was closed-minded about this topic because of that statement, and perhaps that was a premature and wrong assumption to make.

Okay so I'm done with this now, I always enjoy a healthy debate but this is far from that. I guess discussing the original topic may now be considered beating a dead horse - heavy pun intended.


admittedly i was slightly pissed when i wrote that... looking back it was retarded. i'm laughing at myself now.

incidentally, i'm a he...

incidentally, i'm a he...

*gasp* blasphemous, an enemy has infiltrated!!

This article will not stop me eating beef, even modern industrial beef, because I like the local burger joint and they don't bother with the grass-fed stuff. But I believe in making informed choices and besides, I actually thought there was a lot of interesting information in here - it's a guy who went to a ranch and bought an animal to follow "from calf to steak." Take a look: http://www.nehbc.org/pollan1.html

Particularly anyone who had the strong emotional reaction against eating horses (or dogs) on the grounds that they're companions, you might be interested in the few paragraphs on the emotional life of a cattle rancher... While I understand the desire not to eat something that you've treated well, I'm not sure that treating something badly just so as not to feel guilty about eating it is to be recommended.

Excerpt, on the author not wanting to make an emotional connection because he didn't know if he could handle the consequences: "My intention, after all, is to send this animal to slaughter and then eat some of him." :laugh:

I find it so bizarre and arbitrary how cultures decide which species are fit for consumption or not (and for that matter, which milk is ok to drink). I mean cow vs. horse.... As far as I can tell the only difference is the sentimental attachment we have to horses. Or maybe it is a srtiodactyl vs. perrisodactyl issue. Anyone tried rhino??

I hear dog is pretty good... Although I find that somewhat surprising, I'd much rather eat herbivore than carnivore.

I'll finish with one of my favorite South Park quotes:

Stan: Dude, dolphins are intelligent and friendly.
Cartman: Intelligent and friendly on rye bread with some mayonnaise.

:)
Miranda

Cartman: Intelligent and friendly on rye bread with some mayonnaise.
Ha!! :laugh:

Haven't tried dolphin, but I did eat whale in Norway. Man, I'm just racking up the culinary bad karma. I'm not really bothered by people eating domestic animals of whatever kind (I'd say it's more respectful to eat the meat, tan the hide, and boil the carcass down for glue, dog food, and jello than to just incinerate all that precious biological material and dump it in the trash). But hunting whale - despite the fact that it was very, very tasty - does make me just a bit queasy. Same with the piles of seal skins for sale in the outdoor markets. It kind of falls into the bushmeat category for me. I guess I'd say that we should understand and be able to successfully manage the breeding stock of any wild animal we hunt for food.

[/i]
Am I the only one who would rather these efforts from the house be put towards regulating the slaughter industry, then trying to ban it. IMHO slaughtering animals is not cruel, it is the way they do it that I have a problem with - if they transported them with food and water, and they met a marksmen when they arrived, I think it would be better for everyone (including the horses).

I've been following the equine slaughter issue for the year and a half or so...What was being contested was the use of government funding to pay for FDA meat insepction...without which the slaughter could not take place and the animals would be sent to Mexico (or no where). They've successfully banned the use of government monies, but the slaughter houses (all 1.5 of them) have been allowed to use a "pay for service" option where they pay the inspectors themselves. Anti-slaughter advocates obviously took this as an end-run around the wholesale banning slaughter.

All meat pretty much is graded and inspected whether it will be eaten by people or other animals. A fair amount of this meat is going into other animal feed.

Most horse organizations are very much for having the option of equine slaughter in large part b/c of the never-ending problem of unwanted horses.

I'm for equine slaughter. I even brought it up in most of my interviews as something I felt was a real professional concern.

I'll finish with one of my favorite South Park quotes:

Stan: Dude, dolphins are intelligent and friendly.
Cartman: Intelligent and friendly on rye bread with some mayonnaise.

:)
Miranda

Does anyone remember that Futurama epsiode with the popplers...they decided eating intelligent animals was bad, then someone is about to eat a dolphin, and he informs them that this particular dolphin was not intelligent b/c he lost all his money in a card game, or something like that...

anyway...the south park qoute made me think of that...

“I avoid eating anyone I haven’t known and
cherished.” - Jim Corbett

you guys should check out his books... interesting stuff.

:idea: So if you do not send those animals to slaughter what to do...
If we were to treat them as we do dogs and cats:
Cremation (kinda large for that though)
Burial (same problem)
Rendering- so your horse will become dog/cat/cow food someone is still eating them, or they are in your soap and makeup....

With all that said I would have to say I don't mind them going to slaughter for those who would like to eat them.

Rendering- so your horse will become dog/cat/cow food someone is still eating them, or they are in your soap and makeup....


Some of the new rendering bio-digestion facilities are really impressive...my numbers might be a little off, but I recall it being something like 6 full-size cows being totally digested in 3 days...down to bones...

From my understanding they're giant pits of bacteria and enzymes....

anyway...