The Jurga Report

re: The Jurga Report

CRob87 — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:10:52 GMT

sceptre:

I'll agree with you on that because I think we share a similar Ideology, but possibly just a difference in direction.

It's just too bad that more people (within the Industry) don't seem to think like us or ideas like ours would've already been in place.

re: The Jurga Report

sceptre — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:31:57 GMT

CRob87:

I'll engage in this dialogue a bit more in hope that it may stimulate others (and that they, in turn, will stimulate others)to more fully examine these issues. This could result, one day, in "the real solution" (my previous last line)-for all to more deeply ponder what "should" be our obligations/interactons to/with the other species.

You and I apparently share a desire to better protect from slaughter those thoroughbreds within the racing industry. I would assume that this extends to unwanted broodmares, stallions, etc; those young and old. Your proposal, if implemented, would surely help in that regard. It is, in a sense, an insurance policy, the premiums paid (out of purse share) by those who participate in racing horses. One can easily foresee a similar solution implemented for the sorely needed better monitoring of those in training-prevention from catastrophic injury, etc. Much of the technology is already out there, but not the owners' $ to put it to use. You see, where does one draw the line? There are also that vast majority of slaughtered horses that have no connection with thoroughbred racing. Are they not equally worthy? And, what of other species with similar needs? Yes, you might answer-one step at a time-but I contend that these issues needed to be better addressed long ago; that the present concern for racehorse slaughter could serve as a "light bulb" to the bigger, more vital, picture. That to ignore it now would be a wasted opportunity.

I have been a racehorse breeder/owner for nearly 50 years. I have observed all manner and degree of care afforded these horses (rearing through racing-breeding), and all too often it is sadly lacking. Anyone is permitted to enter this game, but as we know its economics and methods are such that many horses suffer the consequences. One might easily conclude that racing should be abolished, but this would result in the existence of less horses-a dilemma for me not easily resloved...There may be no easy answers to this. The game itself does not generate sufficient funds to properly address the health and well-being of the horse. We are a free society which cannot restrict participation in racing (for example) due to income, knowledge, etc. Yet,in this instance, it's rather likely that the horse would be better off if this were the case... Just my attempt at offering a bit more food for thought.

re: The Jurga Report

CRob87 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:43:24 GMT

Sceptre:

An individual responsibility is what I believe will "Kill" the Industry by driving away owners. Especially new owners, when you tell them that they "Could" be held financially responsible for this horse for the next 20-30 years. No one in their right mind would agree to that. So it almost has to be a collective responsibility.

At least it would be a place to start. You could tweak everything after the program is up and running.

And if the percentage needs to be higher, then make it a full 5% and eliminate the payoff beyond 4th place. Especially since (IMO) if your horse isn't finishing in the top 4 consistently then you probably shouldn't look to keep him anyways.

Who knows, maybe that way will teach everyone to only keep better stock. Or at the least of things, not to run them over their heads as often as they do.

And another possible "Effect" could be that people will keep smaller sized Stables. Thereby also helping to control the overproduction of the breed. Which would also result in "Fewer" Unwanted horses.

P.S. Your last line..."The real solution rests in the hands of society as a whole-to better embrace the "moral" rights of these creatures".

Are you referring to "Government Funding" or what exactly ???

re: The Jurga Report

sceptre — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:02:55 GMT

CRob87, your "self sustaining fund" (1% of total purses allocated to the care of all unwanted horses) is not a new idea. It's been advocated in the past, but notice that no jurisdiction has ever adopted such a policy. Yes, perhaps if much more pressure is applied it might "pass". Take a closer look, though, at the numbers: Total yearly purses = approx. $1B; 1%=$10M. Approx. 100,000 horses in US are (were) slaughtered/yr., of those 16% are thoroughbreds. The $1B/yr=$100/yr./horse (for the 100,000 horses), or $600/yr./horse if it were allocated only to thoroughbreds. So, the proposed funding is insufficient unless a goodly % were "rehabilitated" (similar to what Frank Stronach, and wife, accomplish at a facility in Canada). A similar structure for the quarterhorse and standardbred industry would also help with the mathematics. I see this, however, as only a temporary solution. It also essentially creates a collective responsibility from what should be an individual responsiblity. No such formula could apply for many other species (dogs, cats, etc.). The real solution rests in the hands of society as a whole-to better embrace the "moral" rights of these creatures.

re: The Jurga Report

CRob87 — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:41:44 GMT

I'm in favor of helping and caring for our horses, But...

If anyone believes that the Industry will actually create legislation that will "Force" the current and possibly last owner of a horse to be financially responsible for it's welfare for the remainder of it's life...Your Crazy.

That's the fastest way to devastate the entire Industry. It will drive away owners.

Now in some cases that's probably a good thing. But, if it drives away too many or any potentially new owners, then the Industry itself will Die.

So...here's what I think is a better solution.

Take 1% of "ALL" the purse money from "EVERY" race in the country and put it into...lets call it a "Self Sustaining Fund" for example.

With that amount of money to work with I believe that this Industry can truely be a "Self Sustaining" one. And even possibly help in other areas of our Industry that might need it as well.

And it wouldn't really take that much to do. All you would have to do, for an example is, Restructure the current payouts per finishing position.

Something like...

60% for First.

20% for Second.

10% for Third.

5% for Fourth.

3% for Fifth.

1% for Sixth.

And the remaining

1% for the "Self Sustaining Fund".

Just an idea to consider that might also create new jobs in the Industry by way of taking care of the Unwanted horses.

re: The Jurga Report

da3hoss — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:15:29 GMT

In response to Sandra that horses are just another livestock animal, they are ubique...not a companion animal per se, but not a traditional livestock animal either..but because they are considered agricultural, hence fall under livestock...

Horses hold a valued position in man's history and this country's history as a partner. I've bred police/narcotic/border patrol German Shepherd Dogs since 1986, been a SAR handler and married to a Police-K9 handler so i deeply appreciate the utilitarian contributions that animals give to humans...few animals share the position of companion/worker that dogs do ...horses are one of the few...up here in the Boston/New Hampshire area a number of police departments use K9's and use mounted patrols...those horses have the same nerves of steel, loyalty and intelligence that is required of a dog...they must have intuition and discernment and that indescribable thing we call "heart"...the bond between a horse and officer is as deep as any partnership between a dog and its handler.

A species that has such a long partnership with humans has earned our best effort to make their death a humane one...as should be for all animals...

Going outside now to hug my horses, my trees, say hello to the deer, bobcats, fox, turkeys, black bear, etc that live in my woods on my land...then take a ride in my SUV to buy grain and hay...;-)

One little off-subject note: on the scale of learning and problem solving ability the horse ranks higher than the dog...the one factor affecting the horse's ability to learn?... he cannot learn in the fear state...

re: The Jurga Report

da3hoss — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:27:38 GMT

The need for slaughter houses is due to 2 main reasons:

1. excessive breeding practices, particularly Thoroughbred, Quarter Horse and Paint breeds.

Approximately 100,000 horses are/were slaughtered/year...only 10-15% are old, crippled, etc. the rest are young, healthy, saddle horses, or simply unwanted e.g "sadly outgrown".

2.The high cost to humanely euthanize your horse. It cost me $600 to put down my 32 year old son's pony last September (coastal New Hampshire), compared to $75 to euthanize my 13 yr old German Shepherd yesterday. From what I understand I got off easy on my horse compared to some parts of the country. There is a real need for a cost effective humane solution for these large animals.

We do need to hold breeders and registry practices accountable through the media and education, and we all need to help rescues, but this takes time and the need is now.

For me personally, the main reason I advocated against slaughter is that for horses it is inhumane...they use the metal cattle cage halter to hold the horse's head, which is ill-fitting..like all normal horses, they are already in a panicked, frightened, confused state and the majority fight the ill-fitting head cage and the "stun bolt' is not applied correctly...many, many horses are not rendered dead or unconscious, they are then hoisted onto hooks to die...

A BETTER, MORE HUMANE way has be developed....if the slaughter laws are reversed, doesn't the horse...man's partner, companion and worker only equaled by the dog, elephant and camel... deserve an easier end to its unwanted life? Isn't 100,000 animals enough to warrant a method suitable to horses????

I am a reluctant, sad pragmatist...right now the equine rescues near me are inundated, literally trying to give horses away, with huge waiting lists due to fear of the economy...but we can't just go back to status quo and pretend.

re: The Jurga Report

trustkeeper — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:06:04 GMT

A USDA assessment of the horses sent to slaughter showed that over 90% of them were young (7-10 years old), in good weight (they pay by the pound), healthy, and not lame. Even weanlings just over 6 months old could be legally slaughtered. The typical slaughter horse was not a useless, starved, or old horse so that argument is without merit.

The horse slaughter industry is not a public service for ridding the countryside of unwanted horses. That is just the PR rubbish they present to a naive and unsuspecting public.

re: The Jurga Report

sceptre — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:50:03 GMT

In a perfect world, no living (at least, sentient) creature would be raised for slaughter, slaughtered (regardless their purpose at conception), or euthanized, unless done specifically for the creature's benefit (?). So this is not a perfect world, but we humans essentially control it, have an intellect-can reason highly, and as such are obliged to make moral decisions. We are capable of drawing some lines. I submit that horses (for one, among many species) are not conceived (through our intervention) for slaughter notwithstanding that some humans choose to make them a meal. Since WE created the problem of too many unwanted horses, it is our problem to solve, rather than scapegoating the horses through slaughter. This should not be an option for any animal of that type-its owners should not have this option. So,the LAW should dictate that the last owners (last in the sense that no further person desires ownership)are responsible for the reasonable health and well-being of the animal for as long as it lives. So, breeders (and owners down the line) take note-you could potentially be that last owner. Should you choose not to be exposed to such risk, simply don't initiate the process, etc. What is to prevent us from mandating such a law? Is it morally viable to suggest that those with the most intellect/power shall be permitted to control the fates of other living beings?

re: The Jurga Report

Marsha — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:06:27 GMT

It's doubtful that anyone in the quarter horse industry hopes to clone more horses to send to slaughter, since it costs over $120,000 to do the procedure. That wouldn't really make sense, would it? A clone is generally a 'replica' of a very valuable animal, and as such, would not really qualify as unwanted.

For that matter, I've never heard any breeder of any horse suggest that they are breeding for the kill plant.

re: The Jurga Report

Sandra — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:52:33 GMT

I don't think that cloneing horses is the subjects here. I work with animals every day and see the horses left on the sides of the road. The days of back yard breeding is finished. The puppy mills and the stupid breeders that just want that puppy or foal should be held accountable for their breeding programs. Not every horse is a good horse not every dog is a champion. But regardless of this way of breeding we as a country need to take care of the unwanted, lame, non-healthy, unloved horses out there. Slaughter is one way of doing this. Face life, some people like horsemeat and we have been eating it of longer then any of us has been alive. The bleeding heart tree huggers need to think what is going to happen to all the unwanted, unloved horses. I don't believe that they would want one of theses animals roaming the street to hit with their car or fancy suv. Believe me they would be the first ones to complain to there congress to change that fact. The point is horses are livestock and need to be handled as such. I love horses and owner a few already, But I don't believe in breeding a trail horse with no monetary value except to me. The breeder in this country need to start being held accountable for the breeding on equine in this country. At least with that the slaughter companies would only get the sick and lame horses.

re: The Jurga Report

Just learning — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:14:54 GMT

I am new to the horse issue so I'[m in the I want to ask a question or two about it. I grew up on a farm in minnesota and we slaughtered cattle for food and tried to use every part of the animal possible. People are donating their bodies to science. Why can't we use the horse after it's usefulness in the pasture? What are we supposed to do with the animal if we don't slaughter? They aren't small and if you don't take care of the carcus then we will create more issues. Is the issue that we are putting them down like we do any dog, cat or any other animal that is in misery? Or is the issue that we are using them for another purpose? My stand on what I know so far is, by cloing plants and removing the ability to sell horse meat in today's economy is we are taking away jobs which we desperately need, and removing a commodity that maybe the rest of the world would use. You know kind of like the little thin called oil. I heard in the news the other day that the reason why gas was still almost $2 a gallon and crude was only $34 a barrel is because the $34 a barrel is domestic cost of oil and our gas is made from foreign crude which is higher. What is that about. Let's stand tall and not let our country drill for oil off our shores but we can let other countries do it becuase they are in international waters. When do we start to take care of us. When do we start to see the trees in the forest.

re: The Jurga Report

Janine Starykowicz — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:44:45 GMT

So, the Quarter Horse industry wants slaughter so they can get uteruses to clone more unwanted horses that they can then sell to slaughter?

The slaughter industry is always looking for loopholes, just like they are looking for taxpayer money to subsidize their business.

We need to stop the cycle of pro-slaughter producers creating more unwanted and abandoned horses and then claiming they "need" slaughter to fix a problem of their own making. Pass HR503 now.