Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Unintended, but completely predictable consequences

Posted in:

Illinois

More horses are being sent to Mexico for slaughter since last year’s closure of three U.S. horse-slaughter plants in Illinois and Texas for violating state laws.

The grueling cross-border journeys stretch for hundreds of miles with horses crammed in double-decker trailers. They face deaths there that are sometimes far more gruesome than they would have been in the United States; some horses have been killed by repeatedly being stabbed.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture says more than 45,000 horses went to Mexico for slaughter last year, up from about 11,000 the year before.

“People have no place to go with them,” said Wayne Earven, a former state livestock inspector who was recently selling a horse at a Willcox auction. “To be real honest with you, we haven’t seen the worst of it yet.” […]

But in Mexico, a number of recent media reports and videos show that horses were being stabbed repeatedly to sever the spinal cord.

We can pat ourselves on the back for “saving” horses by banning slaughter in this state at the behest of the “lovely” Bo Derek, but the horses appear to be worse off now than ever before. We’ve essentially exported our problem. Out of sight, out of mind.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 11:21 am

Comments

As a former owner of livestock, I know there’s another solution to an old, unwanted horse. The local vet can euthanize it and you can bury it. Of course, this is a hassle, so horseowners like it when someone comes out and trucks the horse away. No emotion, no work. Sad.

Comment by Sir Reel Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 11:34 am
I was against the slaughterhouse ban because it imposed our cultural beliefs — horses are pets rather than livestock — on the rest of the world. However, this news made me aware of a rationale that would support some regulation of horse slaughterhouses: humane treatment of animals. If Bo Derek, Michael Sneed, and Co. had concentrated on that issue, they would have had greater success.

As it is, the end result is that horses bound for slaughter are not saved from their fate; they just suffer a worse fate.

Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 11:43 am
Wait Capt Fax that was Blaggodiot’s biggest, most stupendous lobbying triumphs. He got Bo Derek in the office and they did what they had to do — and got some votes too.
Wonder who lobbies for the Mexico bound truckers? Could it be Wymamontana?

Comment by IDTYT Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 11:44 am
I believe NAFTA still allows Congress to ban exporting horses to be slaughtered for food.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:00 pm
Hey, at least Bob Molaro made Sneed’s column!

Comment by Shane Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:06 pm
Wait a minute…why is the classified as ‘unintended’? Isn’t this exactly what the lawmakers intended for when they banned the practice last year?

What did they think was going to happen to those horses?

Comment by Leroy Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:08 pm
They didn’t think what was going to happen to all of those horses….they just wanted to go along with a couple well intentioned ( but uninformed) do-gooders. As for Bo Derek at least she’s not out working the members on the GRT.

Comment by downhereforyears Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:18 pm
This piece of legislation was the biggest time waster the General Assembly has taken up yet.

The state is a permanent state of fiscal crisis and this is what they take up on the floor. Genius.

Comment by Centrino Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:29 pm
Members who are in agri buisness voted no on this measure, for the exact reasons the formentioned ad states. For members to claim “they didnt know this was going to happen” should have listened to the floor debate which clearly stated this as the a very possible and even likely senario. THat is their job to debate and listen to testimony isn’t it? I am shocked that this would have evaded them. Must have been a cake in someones office durning the committee and floor debate.

Comment by Moderate REpub Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:38 pm
They’ll probably now have to pass a law barring export of horses to other countries.

Comment by Crimefighter Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:39 pm
Which will have about the same success as our laws banning the import of undocumented workers.

This was truly a bit of “sound byte” legislation - sounds good on the face of it, high reward/risk ratio, if there’s a problem, it will be some other country’s, not ours…sorta like tightening all our environmental protection laws while buying all our consumer goods from Smokestack China.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 2:37 pm
Responsible horse owners can do exactly what Sir Reel suggests and call a vet. They do not have to make a profit on a sick and ailing horse by sending it to the “glue factory.” And as another poster commented the US government can step in under NAFTA. Being humane and civilized shouldnt be so hard.

Comment by concerned Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 2:50 pm
Wow, you mean now to enjoy a good US Horse I have to go to Mexico….we eat cattle and chickens…I forgot Horses are cute compared to those two

Comment by Horse Lover Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 3:16 pm
Hey, they’ve already got most of our manufacturing jobs … why shouldn’t they get what few slaughtering jobs we have, too? Then, we can get in our Mexican-made “American” cars, pick up some “American” horse meat slaughtered in Mexico, then dial up CapFax on our SE Asian made “American” computers. And hey, if we have any problems with that SE Asian “American” puter, we can always call our friendly “American” tech support in India

Comment by Snidely Whiplash Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 5:03 pm
===Responsible horse owners can do exactly what Sir Reel suggests and call a vet. ===

That’s your opinion of “responsible.” Others might say that making money off of obsolete livestock in order to pay their bills and put their kids through school, rather than pay a vet and a backhoe operator is “responsible.”

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 5:54 pm
rich miller, horses are not raised or bred as food animals. Livestock are raised as food animals. If someone cannot afford to humanely euthanize a horse, they cannot afford to own one. $200 is not going to pay their bills and put their children through college.

Comment by vicki Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 8:02 pm
I thought that our tax dollars were paying for the Feds who were inspecting the plants that were providing meat to overseas plants where the majority of the processing took place and profits were being realized. Therefore, the costs that the owners should have paid to put their horses down were being distributed to all of us.

I believe that that was why Congress eventually cut the funding. Furthermore, I believe that it was decided that the plant could not fund the inspectors for obvious reasons.

The position animal rights activists took was based on the humane treatment of animals. Others who supported them were against having to assume responsibility for, including costs associated with, putting down someone else’s animals to provide a “delicacy” for Europeans, which are animals that had not been raised for human consumption.

Perhaps I missed something: why does the meat and/or plant have to be inspected by our government–and therefore supported by us? Resolve that issue and perhaps one group of supporters of the plant closure will reconsider their position.

Comment by Annonymous Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 9:27 pm
The Dallas Crown, Inc. in Texas made $12 million in revenue in one year and paid only five dollars in U.S. taxes.

Comment by Annonymous Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 10:06 pm
And then, of course, the USDA decided to go to battle with Congress over the funding ban.

No wonder our horses are considered such a delicacy–what enlightening and jovial dinner conversation this whole issue must provide some regions of the world.

Those Americans….

Comment by Annonymous Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 10:25 pm