Posted on 01/31/2008 2:23:17 PM PST by mdittmar
ZIMMERMAN, Minn., Jan. 31 (UPI) -- The operator of a horse-rescue organization in Minnesota said the number of neglected horses needing care has gone up dramatically as the economy slows.
Drew Fitzpatrick is now caring for 90 horses at the Minnesota Hooved Animal Rescue Foundation in Zimmerman. She told the St. Paul Pioneer-Press Thursday the economic downturn has been tough on horses bought when times were good.
Wade Hanson of the Humane Society said calls about neglected horses are running at 15 a month, while about 15 horses are dying needlessly a year. Both neglect cases and deaths have quadrupled, the report said. Hanson said many newly rich people bought spreads in the country and added horses without knowing much about them. "They thought they were going to be ranchers," he said.
"They are so clueless. I have talked to people who didn't think horses needed water in the wintertime, because they would just eat snow."
Some of the horse owners put stallions and mares in the same field, not realizing that would lead to more horses.
Well, you’re right: betty is a (lower case) liberal, but she’s not a (upper case) Liberal! If you’re not sure exactly what the difference is, maybe you should find out before you strap on that invincible virtue of yours and go out to do more shooting from the hip.
Speaking of getting government to do one’s dirty work, maybe we should explore how far you are willing to go to eschew government doing dirty work for you (just for kicks and giggles).
Today’s Humane Societies are the ultimate expression of a time more than a century ago (about 1904 as I recall) when New Yorkers grew so exasperated at the sight of horses being beaten and starved on their streets, that they determined to do something about it. They had government do their ‘dirty work’ for them in the form of cruelty laws that imposed fines and jail-time for such perverse behavior. There were some earlier instances (Cleveland & Quincy, Ma. come to mind), and in New York stray dogs were caught and put down, usually by shooting or drowning, before the War Between The States. But, I think New York is primarily credited for the birth and growth of today’s Humane Society, and, as I said, that credit goes back to the early years of the Twentieth Century.
So, the question now arises; do you object to government doing your ‘dirty work’ for you, and do you want us to go back to a time over a century ago, when people bit their tongues and looked the other way when animals were being mistreated, or even killed. Your answer will tell us whether you are a Libertarian, as betty speculated, or actually a Conservative.
”Wow, how generous!”
Do you demand that betty care for how many animals (ten horses, 100 horses, a thousand horses) before you consider her qualified to speak? What restrictions do you put on your own expression?
No one who knows you would doubt your conservative credentials.
And a simple click on your handle would have shown him/her that you have been on this - the world's largest conservative political forum - for nearly 10 years.
Thank you both for your wonderful essay-posts!
Now, there is stupid.
Humane laws about proper treatment are not the same as banning a humane way of making the end of a horse’s life useful and affordable. If you equate the two you are far off base.
The boop can speak all she wants no matter how many horses she personally does or does not support - and I can still consider her a hypocrite for talking with no action.
Her position is the same as banning abortion while disallowing adoption.
Unlike others, I’m not seeking to use government force to ban speech or humane treatment. Nor am I asking the government to use tax dollars to support these same useless horses. If you think a conservative should use government force and money to do these things, then my dear, you are no conservative.
Note to all: horses are not pets. Anyone who thinks they are know nothing about keeping horses.
Horses are not pets. You can love them and take care of them, but they are not pets. They are work animals.
Regarding them as pets leads to this type of stupidity. Just ask the horse rescue people.
You're just being mean! Everyone knows that anyone can run a business or a farm! It's just they didn't have a chance, and once they're in charge, they didn't have the luck that the more successful people had. The markets were no good, or their suppliers wouldn't help them. It's not their fault that they fail when they're in charge! They mean well, and as we all know, the social responsibilities are far more important than financial success!
Mark
Much like the DDT ban... Not only has it led to millions of deaths in areas effected by malaria, here in the US with all the travel (both legal and illegal) we're seeing a huge rise in bed bug infestations all over the country.
Mark
Your post: Liberty is the power which every man has over his own Actions, and the Right to enjoy the Fruit of his Labor, Art, and Industry, as far as by it he hurts not the Society, or any Member of it, by taking from any Member, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys.
Yet you want to remove our liberty to do the thing that seems right to us for a humane outcome. You don’t mind killing a steer for food, but draw the line at horses. That’s a very arbitrary distinction to remove liberty. Show me where killing a horse is murder, but killing a steer is not. And please - no “it’s a pet” argument.
My proposed solution ? Slaughterhouses. If a person can no longer keep a horse and cannot sell it, then the slaughterhouses were always a good way to not only dispose of the horse but to do it with some benefit to society (food) and no cost to the owner. My personal way to do it is to donate it to my local foxhunt for hound food. I feel about it the same way that I feel about organ donation - once I’m dead, I’d still like to be of some use other than taking up space in a 6 ft hole.
Again, horses are not pets. Just one costs hundreds of dollars a month for care and at least one acre, at the very least, on which to live.
If you own a horse that is no longer useful or find yourself in a circumstance where you can no longer provide hundreds of dollars a month in support and cannot sell or give away the horse to a good situation, then the only options are rescues which are already stuffed to the brim, or euthanasia. To euthanize a horse and not be able to use it for food costs over a thousand dollars around where I live - you pay the vet, you pay to have the carcass hauled off, and you pay for the bulldozer/backhoe to lift the carcass into and out of the truck, and you have to pay for its disposal.
Look at reality. It’s not always what you want but it is what it is.
Powder..patch..ball FIRE!
Its not the economy stupid.
It’s the feel good politicians who banned processing horse flesh for human consumption in the united states.
I’ve seen prices plummet over 70% at local horse auction.
Well of course, that goes without saying. But, people who want to take a horse with problems are few and far between. And you simply can’t turn a horse out in most areas year-round without checking water every day, yearly tooth floating, plus throwing hay for a portion of the year.
I have a bunch of acres, and 4 horses. I’ve had horses since the early 80s. I had one founder some years ago - after many months of expensive care the vet said she’d never work again. I was lucky to find someone who needed an easy-going mare for a companion to a broodmare. The second one I had to dispose of got so bad with ringbone and sidebone that the only humane thing to do was euthanize. My hunt was happy to take him for hound food - feeding 50 hounds every day is a big expense and they could put him to good use. Did I like it ? No, but that’s life.
To all: those who keep animals of any type - whether farm or pet - need to learn how to accept death.
Powder..Patch..Ball FIRE!
Most horses slaughtered for consumption do not go to dog food but as you stated western europe.
In certain areas horses are being turned out to wild since owners have an investment without value.
Many of us who accept horses and dogs as companion animals - and in many cases, companion animals that also do work - would never treat them as common livestock.
There speaks the liberal attitude - “to me they are pets therefore I want everyone to be forced to behave the way I want them to.”
And that’s the reason this country is turning left - so-called conservatives want to use the government to force their outcome regardless of reality.
Good grief, cinives, I didn't hear A-G say anything about how she wants you to behave. She and I evidently agree that we do not want to see horses raised for food. Nobody said anything about interfering with your decision about euthanizing an animal that is so sick or injured that it can't be saved. And if you want to feed the carcass to the hounds at the hunt club, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
My (our) objection, once again, is raising horses for meat. Again, the Illinois situation (i.e., closing down the packing plant that processes horsemeat) was a local decision. If it had gone the other way, I would deplore it, but I am not entitled, as the resident of another state, to impose my will on the people of Illinois.
But I am entitled to say how very much I applaud the decision the people of Illinois made in this case. If the same situation were to rise in my home state, I would urge the people to do exactly likewise. But I wouldn't be forcing or compelling anyone.
I think you're beating on a straw man.
Seems like a good solution to excess horse problems.
Thanks, that was exactly the idea. It seems more and more that we're actually living out a story that Rand authored. And it's NOT going to end well.
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.