The last of the United States horse slaughter facilities has finally been shut down, but our country is still exporting this nasty business south of the border:



Now, horse slaughter is no worse or no better than the slaughter of any other animal, but it's a practice that has been found contemptible by a wide variety people in the U.S., regardless of their stand on animal rights and veganism, and so we must act on this broad consensus and move forward to make it impossible to circumvent this very clear mandate against killing at least this one species of animal for food.

The simplest tool for making sure your legislators are supporting this bill can be found here. Use the links on that page to be sure your House and Senate members aren't already co-sponsors before filling out the form you'll find there and sending it off. If they have already co-sponsored the bill, visit this page instead to applaud them for their support of this act.

The other page is solely for people whose representatives have not yet co-sponsored H.R. 503/S. 311, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, which would both end the slaughter of American horses for human consumption and prohibit their export for slaughter in other countries. Surely that's worth taking a couple of minutes to support.

Labels: animal law, horse slaughter, horses

You know, it's funny how crazy the idea of veganism seems to some people. Yet they want to stop slaughtering horses while continuing to slaughter cows, pigs and chickens, among other animals.

I have an idea: Stop interfering with nonhuman animals in the first place. It's the Gordian Knot: If we didn't keep animals in zoos, we wouldn't need to slaughter animals to feed them.

The Seattle Times | Local News: Zoos in a pickle over horse meat (August 14, 2007)

Labels: horse slaughter, horses, wildlife, zoos

Current news. I presume you can figure out which is bad, which is mixed, and which is good.

International Herald Tribune: Judge allows last US horse slaughterhouse to stay open a few more days (AP)

CHICAGO: A judge has extended an order allowing the United States' last operating horse slaughterhouse to remain in business while it challenges a state law that would force it to close.

MSNBC.com: Wildlife trade talks end with surprises

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - Elephants emerged safer and tigers won a vote of support, but sharks and corals failed to win protection at a two-week wildlife trade conference that ended Friday.

The conference also saw a shift in conservation politics, with ministers throwing their weight behind negotiations.

China emerged for the first time as a major player at the triennial meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered species, or CITES, surprising delegates with its activism.

Indybay/Go Vegan Radio: "GO VEGAN with BOB LINDEN" to Debut on AIR AMERICA NETWORK weekend of June 30

GO VEGAN RADIO is excited to announce that an agreement has been reached with the AIR AMERICA Network to carry "GO VEGAN with BOB LINDEN" on a weekly basis for a year. Finally, the animals have a voice of compassion coming to the media to advocate for kindness on their behalf, improved human health through complete vegetarianism, and environmental sustainability. The Air America audience, already acquainted with the major problems of the day -- war, violence, world hunger, disease, energy crises, global warming, deforestation, resource depletion -- will now have exposure to the most important solution for all of these -- to GO VEGAN!

"GO VEGAN with BOB LINDEN" will also have greater exposure through five weekly 30 second commercial announcements on other AIR AMERICA programs, ten 60 second commercials during web broadcasts of other AIR AMERICA programs, and a banner ad and page on the AIR AMERICA website.

Now, YOUR work begins. This is a grassroots group effort and you are being asked to do your share. GO VEGAN RADIO is now faced with a $200,000 annual expense for program production and distribution (and no, there is no salary in that figure).

If you made a pledge to make a tax-deductible donation, please send it now.

Make checks payable to GO VEGAN RADIO and mail to International Humanities Center, PO Box 923, Malibu, CA 90265. You may also donate on-line at http://www.GoVeganRadio.org.

If you were only considering a donation until now, please -- now is the time to decide to do it. GO VEGAN RADIO has promised to deliver $50,000 to AIR AMERICA on June 23 and $33,000 every three months after that. It can't be done without your tax-deductible donation NOW! If you pledged to be a "make-it-happen" vegan committed to raising $1000, please collect and send it now. All donations are important - $10, $100, $1000, $10,000. The animals are asking you to get your checkbook now.

You can also support this incredible outreach opportunity by advertising your vegan and cruelty-free products and services. Rates start as low as $300. Advertising opportunities are very limited, with two of available ten already committed. Please email or call (818) 623-6477 if interested in advertising.

Labels: endangered species, exotic animals, extinction, horse slaughter, horses, media, wildlife, wildlife trade

I had a fairly busy animal-friendly weekend, including a fundraising brunch with Dennis Kucinich at Madeleine Bistro in Tarzana, CA, along with readying my home to receive some out-of-town guests coming to visit this week, so I had time to sift through stories, but not enough time to post. Lots of stories I wanted to highlight, and I have little time, so this will be yet another overview. Hopefully I can find the time to write about Dennis and the brunch this week.

In the meantime, check out his stance on the issues, and send him $50. If a million citizens who care about getting corporate money out of politics contribute at least that much, Dennis will be able to compete with those candidates beholden to their big-ticket sponsors.

I'll let Kinship Circle kick things off with an important alert:

URGENT: Don’t Let Illinois Resume Horse Slaughter
http://www.horse-protection.org

BACKGROUND:

5/2/07, from National Horse Protection Coalition -- Following the passage of Illinois HB 1711 by the Illinois House of Representatives on April 18, 2007, the bill now moves forward for consideration by the Illinois State Senate.

HB 1711 has been assigned to the Illinois Senate Committee on Public Health and a public hearing on the bill is scheduled for May 8, 2007. It is now more important than ever following a ruling by the DC Court of Appeals granting Cavel's emergency stay motion. The two judges in the majority issued no opinion on their ruling while the lone dissenting judge wrote a detailed opinion agreeing with the humane community and district court judge who earlier rejected their request. This ruling allows Cavel to begin killing horses immediately.

For more information on the Illinois bill and facts about horse slaughter: http://www.saplonline.org/ilfacts.htm

CONTACT INFORMATION TO TAKE ACTION:

Please contact all members of the Illinois Senate asking them to vote "YES" on HB 1711. The order of priority for calls and faxes is as follows:

1) Public Health Committee Members.
2) Senators who are "new" and/or "did not vote"
on the previous IL bill.
3) Senators who voted "yes" on the previous bill.
Please ask them to continue their support.
4) Senators who voted "no" on the previous bill.

EVERYONE CAN COMMENT: CONTACT INFO for Senate Public Health Committee members. CONTACT INFO for members of ILLINOIS SENATE.

ILLINOIS RESIDENTS ONLY: Find your State Senator and his/her contact info.

(IL Senators' previous vote record)

For further background, the Star-Telegram has this story from the Chicago Tribune. (Illinois horse-meat plant gets reprieve)


In related news, celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey has proven quite adept at generating publicity for himself in the UK by stirring up controversy. This time he is encouraging Britons to take up the consumption of horse flesh, provoking mixed responses, though mostly revulsion. Fortunately, many people are seeing the hypocrisy of not eating one animal while finding others to be perfectly acceptable. The Daily Mail is a bit annoying in how it veers back and forth between strongly considering the merits of Ramsay's exhortation and genuine disgust for the notion (mainly because of the charismatic horse's exhalted status among humans), but there are plenty of choice quotes, like this one:

I ate horse last year, in Kazakhstan. And while it was perhaps not at its gourmet best (served in huge boiled chunks in a lukewarm greasy stew with a sheep's head perched on top) the thought of what I was eating - and I'm not talking about the sheep's head - was a thousand times worse than the nasty taste.

But why is that? After all, we happily eat cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, ducks and even deer on a regular basis. Over recent years, we've embraced all manner of faddy meats - ostrich, emu, even kangaroo and crocodile. But a nice juicy horse steak? Never.

There's a Borat gag in there, but I'll leave it alone. The main thing to note is that the line between the species we eat and those we don't is incredibly arbitrary. The more we highlight that, the clearer it becomes that we shouldn't be eating any animals. You can send letters to the Daily Mail and the Sunday Telegraph. Don't forget to keep them short, to the point, and to include your location and contact information for publication.

Sources:
Daily Mail: Gordon Ramsay is urging Brits to try horse meat, but would you eat it? (allows comments)
Sunday Telegraph: We should eat horse meat, says Ramsay


On to other animals most people arbitrarily wouldn't consider eating...

This story from Pennsylvania's Tribune-Democrat drives home the need to ban the commercial sale of animals:

“I’ve had pet stores approach me and say, ‘How can I find quality puppies?’ I say, ‘You’re not going to.’ ”

This from a county Humane Society Officer, though she also suggests those interested in buying animals do so from a "reputable" breeder. This, as opposed to purchasing from pet stores that seem to be getting a lot of unhealthy animals from Amish puppy mills in the Lancaster and (now) Somerset County areas of Pennsylvania. It's sad that she'd suggest buying animals at all, rather than taking the opportunity to recommend adopting needy animal companions. But at least she paints a vivid picture that will hopefully keep people out of pet stores:

“The tragedy is with females who live their lives in cages, and their value is measured in how many puppies they can breed,” Gower said. “When they can’t breed anymore, they’re excess dogs.”

Source: The Tribune-Democrat: Bust brings puppy-mill problem to light


While I'd like to see commercialized breeding banned entirely, I'm not too thrilled with breed-specific bans, or any legislation singling out a single breed of dog, as frequently happens with pit bulls. Some Massachusetts legislators are planning a hearing next week to consider crackdowns on certain breeds of dogs, including the possible outlaw of breeds linked most frequently to attacks. I'll sum this nonsense up with a quote that mirrors my own thoughts on the issue:

"It's prejudiced to put a ban on a breed," said Milford Animal Control Officer Rochelle Thomson. "It's all about the individual animal - each one should be judged themselves."

All that said, if we didn't breed animals for our own ends in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Source: MetroWest Daily News: State may consider banning pit bulls


On to some more positive legislation, Indian Gov. Mitch Daniels signed an animal cruelty bill on Friday that would make it a "Class D felony, punishable by up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine, to kill an animal with the intent of threatening, intimidating, coercing or terrorizing a household family member." "Deviate sexual conduct" with an animal is now also a Class D felony. I can only say "finally," to that. Isn't all sexual conduct with animals deviate? Despite Peter Singer's assurance that sexual relations with other species is not transgressive if no cruelty is involved, I don't see how you can make an honest case for mutual consent. Besides, if animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, or any other self-serving purpose, why on earth would it be okay to have sex with them?

Oh, the Google hits that will bring up this post now...

Source: The News-Sentinel: Daniels signs minimum wage, animal cruelty bills (AP)


Next up is a rather lengthy op-ed condemning the trial in Vienna over granting a chimp named Hiasl certain rights previously granted only to humans. Now, this trial has been controversial for numerous reasons, including the complaint that all animals should be granted the right to life, liberty and happiness.

But this piece is rather specious in its straw man set-up, pitting this trial against the neglect of deprived humans around the world, as if one cannot simultaneously move forward in various areas of ethical consideration. One need not neglect animals to aid humans, and vice versa. The authors don't even seem to understand what rights are!

I wish I had more time to deconstruct this piece, because it is a grievous wrong to attack any justice movement solely to raise awareness of the plight of others. There are more constructive ways to make a case for compassion.

Source: OpEdNews.com: Primate Worship? Or Depo-Privations?


A big thumbs-up to Colorado State University's Tissue Engineering Laboratory for working to reduce the use of animals in research.

"As a researcher, I want to understand tissue cellular responses and develop a greater capacity to mitigate or prevent damage," said Dr. Tom Eurell, veterinarian and expert in toxicology and immunology and director of the laboratory. "As a veterinarian, I want to minimize or eliminate painful experiments in animals. Tissue engineering allows me to do both

It's nice to see movement forward in this area. The article tells readers that "recent developments in soft tissue research, including corneas, skin and muscle, can greatly reduce the number of animals used to test compounds and research tissue repair after trauma." While it would be preferable to end animal experimentation based on their right not to be used as a lab tool, I'm sleep just fine if it can be ended even sooner through replacement technologies. In effect, the race to find these replacements is a tacit acknowledgment that animals have a right to not be used this way; we're just not willing as a society to state it openly until it serves our interests to do so.

Source: High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal: CSU engineers tissues to reduce use of animals in research


I always enjoy seeing headlines like Rodeos cruel, unnatural: RSPCA (ABC News Australia). Drive that point home!

It's a pretty short, straightforward article, with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals restating its "strong opposition to rodeos" ahead of last weekend's State of Origin international rodeo in Melbourne. The RSPCA's president, Dr. Hugh Wirth, said the government should go further than regulating rodeos, arguing that they should be banned altogether:

"What we're saying is that it is morally wrong to make horses buck and for humans to be riding cattle just for human entertainment, its shades of the Roman Colosseum."

Here's a bright, organic carrot of encouragement to Dr. Wirth!


On that note, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus officials have cried foul about pending legislation in Connecticut to ban the use of common elephant-herding tools, saying that it would end their appearances in the state. Cry me a river.

Oh, wait. This is about money. Silly me.

Circus officials said the economic impact if it cancels annual runs in Hartford and Bridgeport would be about $2.6 million, including $200,000 in state and local taxes and $400,000 in locally purchased supplies.

Gotta love it. The circus is going to boycott Connecticut if they ban bullhooks. Is it just me, or is that the essence of what this is all about? Not delighting audiences, and it's certainly not appreciating and respecting animals. No, as always, it's about greed, pure and simple.

If you're looking for a juicy quote from this piece, I'm happy to oblige you:

...for them to say they won't come to Connecticut is like saying 'we won't bring our corporation into the state unless we can beat up our employees.'

(part-time activist Karen Laski)

But let's not forget something very important. The real issue here is about the use of elephants in the first place, not just the tools used in their abuse. Priscilla Feral, president of the Connecticut-based Friends of Animals puts the issue into sharp relief:

"I really see it as nonsensical, because it purports to regulate the treatment of animals," Feral said. "Whether the bullhook is banned or not, you have to deprive the animal of its freedom. They're hoping to regulate the circus to make it palatable. We're saying animal acts have to go because depriving animals of their freedom is the mistreatment."

Source: The Connecticut Post: Circus claims law will end state visits


I hope this collection of top animal stories from around the world will tide you over until I am free to post again. As always, comments are welcome, but not required!

Labels: animal agriculture, animal cruelty, animal law, animal rights, circus, companion animals, dogs, elephants, horse slaughter, horses, pets, primates, puppy mills, rodeo

International Herald Tribune: U.S. House of Representatives votes to prevent slaughter of wild horses, burros (AP)

On Wednesday, the United States Senate's Commerce Committee approved a bill that would outlaw horse slaughter nationally. The following day, much earlier today, the House of Representatives voted for the third time to prevent the federal government from selling to slaughterhouses wild horses and burros that roam public lands in the West:

The 277-137 vote would restore a 1971 law preventing the Bureau of Land Management from selling the animals for commercial processing.

Protection for the animals was removed in 2004 when Republican former Sen. Conrad Burns slipped a measure in a spending bill to allow their sale.

"These animals were earmarked for death," said Rep. Nick Rahall, Democratic chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee and the bill's sponsor.

Supporters said the wild animals that roam vast expanses of the western United States are American icons that are ending up on the dinner plates of diners in France and Japan. The House voted last year and in 2005 to end the sales, but the Senate never took up the issue.

The article also highlights some facts and figures on "management" numbers and the BLM's cost of caring for the thousands of wild horses and burros removed from public lands each year. I have to ask, what gives us the right to take over every nook and cranny of this planet with over six billion people and squeeze the population of every wild animal species down to the low thousands?

Labels: animal law, habitat encroachment, horse slaughter, horses

Whenever I do these round-ups, I almost feel like I should just be podcasting again. Then I remember how long it takes to record, output, compress and upload the podcast, all in addition to writing up show notes. I could probably write full blog entries for each of these before I would have time to do all that.

So, in the interests of getting these links out while they're still relatively fresh, here goes another batch of news updates. I really do want to comment on them, as there is much to say. To that end, I have included very brief notes after each link, along with a sample quote from each article, but I don't have the time (a real problem lately) to dissect any of these thoroughly. I hope that my faithful readers will easily see the many issues with some of these pieces, including the first headline:

The New York Times: Being Nice to the Bacon, Before You Bring It Home

Retailers clearly see advantages in appealing to the demographic of kinder and gentler meat-eaters, according to Ron Paul, president of Technomic, a Chicago-based research and consulting firm for food suppliers. “There is a growing realization that the humane movement is a long-term movement,” he said. “It’s not going to go away.”

NOTE - Fair warning: The above quote is one of the least aggravating to be found in the article. Letters to the editor

Feedstuffs FoodLink: Producers urged to speak out

Dairy, meat and poultry producers are urged to form a food industry "force" before activists distort even more benefits of modern production practices.

NOTE - I'm always interested to read industry newsletters and websites. It's clear from this and other recent industry reading that large-scale animal exploiters are reeling from the heightened scrutiny over their practices these past few years--including the announcements of this past week or so--putting them on the defense. It appears there is a concerted effort by some in the world of animal exploitation to stir up well-financed and unified campaigns to subvert activist campaigns with more misleading feel-good imagery. "Happy cows," anyone?

The New York Times | EDITORIAL: Japan’s Whaling Obsession

A few outlying countries continue commercial or dubiously scientific whale hunts, notably Japan, which clings to its whaling ways long past the expiration of any defensible reasons for doing so.

NOTE - The above quote is the most "vocal" criticism voiced in this New York Times editorial, which is the official (and in this case, seemingly rather guarded) opinion of the paper. I had noted not long ago that it seemed NYT was providing fairly animal-friendly coverage these days, but that it was trying to "balance" that out more lately, which the previously-linked "bacon" article would seem to corroborate. Letters to the editor

The Observer | World: Court to rule if chimp has human rights

'It's untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria - neither biological, nor mental, nor social.'

NOTE - It seems just a little strange to me to give a chimp human rights, when what we ought to be doing is securing fundamental animal rights for all species, but I will be very curious indeed to see the outcome of this case. I will certainly be pleased to see rights recognized for at least one species, even as I rue the speciesist mentality that bars other animals from basic rights consideration.

The Wall Street Journal: Recent Cases Point to the Limitations of Animal Drug Tests

Animal tests at least give a broad sense of the effects of a drug. In one famous early example, a pancreatic extract successfully tested in diabetic dogs in 1921 helped to illuminate how insulin would help people with the disease. And many experimental medications are eliminated after very serious side effects show up.

Many times, however, subtle results in animals are unclear and scientists just don't know what to make of them. In the case of the new Novartis drug Galvus, James Shannon, the company's global head of pharmaceutical development, told investors that Novartis researchers "do not understand -- do not know -- the mechanism of the skin findings" in monkeys. They do know that "humans appear to react to Galvus in a very different way."

NOTE - Yup, you read that right. This was published in The Wall Street Journal. Of course, the focus here isn't at all the rights of animals not to be treated as non-consenting experimental subjects. But, while the article falls far, far short of condemning all animal testing--in fact it ultimately concludes that we need to develop better translations (models?) to make animal research more effective--it does add a rather conservative voice to the scientifically-grounded criticisms of animal experimentation.

Chicago Tribune: Happy ending unlikely for horses that escaped DeKalb slaughter

[Hooved Animal Humane Society] Executive Director Barbara Geittmann, who said she was disappointed Cavel sent the 200 horses back to suppliers, cheered that so many in the horse community had volunteered to help.

"I'm glad I don't have a face for those [horses] because that would make it harder for me, it would make them individuals," Geittmann said. "But it doesn't stop us. It makes us want to try harder."

NOTE - Focuses on the fall-out from the federal decision to uphold a total ban on horse slaughter in the U.S., including a note that some horses would likely be shipped to Canada for slaughter (until a federal ban on transporting horses for slaughter is passed). I can't help but remark that this would be a non-issue if horses weren't bred or "broken" for human purposes in the first place.

Labels: animal agriculture, animal ethics, animal experimentation, animal intelligence, animal law, animal testing, animal welfare, horse slaughter, horses, whales, whaling

Society for Animal Protective Legislation: Court declares horse slaughter to be illegal (Press Release)

If the lack of recent posts hasn't tipped you off, I've been pretty busy this week. So, for those of you emailing me about certain current events (Wolfgang Puck, Burger King, et al), I apologize that I haven't had time to come up with anything original to add beyond what I've seen at SuperVegan.com (here and here), Taste Better (Vegan Pr0n), Animal Person, and here. All those entries should give you plenty to think about, and they are all blogs you should be subscribed to in addition to AAFL.

In the meantime, before I get some much-needed sleep, I'm basically going to post in full a press release that went out today. No time for insightful analysis dissecting the moral schizophrenia in America that allows us to ban horse slaughter and to keep right on slaughtering cows, pigs and chickens, but I figure you'd want the information:

Washington, D.C. (March 28, 2007) - In a 51-page opinion issued just hours ago, United States District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held that the slaughter of horses in America violates federal law. In her opinion, issued in response to a lawsuit filed in February 2006 by the Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL) and other humane organizations and individuals, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to conduct an environmental impact review of its decision to allow the continuation of horse slaughter.

“Tonight, after years of legislation and litigation, America’s three horse slaughterhouses can no longer kill horses for human consumption,” states Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director for the Society for Animal Protective Legislation. “We call on Illinois-based Cavel International to work with the humane and rescue communities to find permanent safe homes for the hundreds of horses who were slated for slaughter, to give them a second chance at life.”

The rule that was vacated by the court, was promulgated by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service to create a fee-for-service inspection process for horses slaughtered for human consumption. The rule circumvented a Congressionally approved amendment to the FY 2006 Agricultural Appropriations Act that cut federal funding for the required inspections. Because of continuing resolutions approved by Congress to fund the government, today's ruling is effective immediately.

There are three horse slaughterhouses in America, one in Illinois and two in Texas. Though the Texas plants were recently forced to stop slaughtering horses for human consumption when an appellate court upheld a Texas law making it illegal to sell, possess and transport horsemeat for sale for human consumption, the Illinois plant has been killing approximately 1,000 horses per week.

“The American public has overwhelmingly opposed the slaughter of America’s horses for human consumption and now the courts have declared horse slaughter to be illegal,” adds Heyde. “While horses will no longer be butchered in the U.S. they can be hauled under appalling conditions to a similarly brutal death in plants across the U.S. border. Congress must pass federal legislation to extend the protections to all horses and to send a clear message to those few who profit from this barbaric trade."

Currently pending in Congress are H.R. 503 and its Senate companion measure, S. 311, which would ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption and prohibit the transport of horses outside of the United States for slaughter.

The Society for Animal Protective Legislation, the Animal Welfare Institute's legislative arm, is the unsurpassed leader in obtaining laws to benefit animals in need, including the protection of domestic and wild horses. More information is available at www.saplonline.org/horses.htm.

Labels: animal law, horse slaughter, horses

The New York Times has been getting better about covering animal issues lately, with its own editorials becoming noticeably more animal-friendly. Perhaps it is in the name of balance that they then publish We Eat Horses, Don’t We?, an Op-Ed by Christa Weil, author of “Fierce Food: The Intrepid Diner’s Guide to the Unusual, Exotic and Downright Bizarre.”

You can tell from the title of her book how this is gonna go, and she exceeds expectations with a history of horse consumption in America. Of course, I'm fully in favor using reality to expose rhetoric, but even her own prejudice against horse flesh betrays a double standard for animals in this country.

I have eaten all manner of improbable items, from antelope to waterbug, but the fact that horses so graciously did my bidding several decades ago means I won’t knowingly eat their kind (or dog, or dolphin) unless hard times make it a necessity.

It’s easy to denounce the inhumane transport and slaughter of horses, even before taking into account the significant environmental cost of transporting 100,000 carcasses and animals a year thousands of miles to overseas markets.

But the fate of less charismatic food animals is also a brutal business. Last year, 150 pigs being shipped from Ohio to a Texas slaughterhouse died after spending up to 72 hours in a truck with no water, food or relief from 95 degree heat. The dispatch of male chicks on an egg farm can be flat-out horrific. The ill treatment of slaughter-bound horses is bad, but it would be worse still if it made us pay less attention to the undue suffering of other food animals.

There are solid reasons to object to horse slaughter. But to imply that it is somehow un-American doesn’t go the distance. Americans have eaten it, even enjoyed it, though never so much to keep it coming in times of plenty, except at Harvard. Horsemeat has been a traditional hardship food. Those seeking to ban it in Congress would serve best by ensuring that we never miss it.

There's a lot to dissect in just that excerpt, from the reductive use of the term "food animals" to the notion that pigs are somehow less charismatic than horses. Pigs are awesome.

She certainly is keen to make sure readers don't forget the suffering of other animals, but banning the slaughter of horses has nothing to do with that. In fact, once the ban is in place, it's on to the slaughter of all other animals, regardless of their perceived charisma.

You know, she makes another really bizarre conclusions at the end there: Even though there are solid reasons to object to horse slaughter, don't ban horse slaughter... just in case? Inane.

To read the complete article, log in to The New York times with your account (free registration), or use bugmenot. Then send your letter to the editor on behalf of the ban

Labels: horse slaughter, horses

TIME

Fire up your e-mail clients...

Foodie Joel Stein spends an entire column extolling the virtues of horse meat before "begrudgingly" justifying its consumption as equal to consuming other domesticated animals. But, instead of taking that as the obvious cue not to eat any of them, he writes:

It's not that I don't think killing horses is cruel. It's just that I think killing chickens, pigs, sheep and cows is equally bad. Morality based on aesthetics is pretty shallow. In fact, the only weird part about eating horse was that, unlike with bacon or rib eye, we kept picturing the animal, which was kind of gross. Nonetheless, until I decide to stop my less-than-noble practice of eating other animals, I've got little choice but to order up some more horse.

Now, it's your turn to write. I'd hope to see many letters faulting Mr. Stein for continuing to consume the products of cruelty, considering he knows better.

Labels: animal agriculture, horse slaughter, horses

HSUS: American, Delta Airlines Halt Shipments of Horsemeat Overseas After Court Ruling Upholds Texas Law Declaring Horsemeat Illegal

The Humane Society of the United States, hot on the heels of a recent court decision upholding a ban on horse slaughter in Texas, sent letters to American and Delta Airlines informing them "that the airlines and their employees face potential criminal liability for transporting horse meat in Texas and urged them to immediately stop shipping horse meat from slaughterhouses in Texas to Europe and Asia for human consumption." Sure enough, three days later, HSUS is commending the airlines for suspending these shipments.

At the national level, we are still awaiting a move from Congress to bring The Horse Protection Act amendment to a vote, passage of which would "prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes." (In the House | In the Senate)

Photo by Coen Deurloo

Labels: animal agriculture, horse slaughter, horses

Scare tactics from the Ag committee on the H.R. 503 show how desperate they're getting that the bill is moving forward. Their language also points out the importance of focusing activism on the ownership of animals. If you can't own an animal, you can't decide to send it to a slaughterhouse if it's of no further use to you.

Also, more on former Rep. Charles Stenholm, a democrat who now works as a lobbyist for the horse slaughter industry. The Ag committee is heavily on his side with this 37-3 unfavorable recommendation. Go figure.

Labels: animal law, horse slaughter

AP Wire (Star-Telegram.com)

It's hard not to enjoy the complaints of those in Congress who tried to sabotage legislation meant to protect horses from slaughter in America.

While the bill, which emerged amendment-free from committee this week, does not actually ban horse slaughter outright, it does ban shipping, transporting, delivering, receiving, buying, selling or donating horses for slaughter for human consumption. Of course, the italics are mine... These key words make me wonder how much the horse content in various products like pet food are going to go up, despite protestations that H.R. 503 would require $162 million to "care" for an estimated 90,000 "unwanted" horses). The bill also prohibits sending horses from the U.S. to Canada or Mexico to be slaughtered.

What was particularly interesting to read was all the squirming over what certain congressional representatives think this means for animal consumption in the U.S. in the future:

Opponents said the bill would eventually lead to bans on the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens and other livestock.

"This bill is part of a larger agenda for the animal rights activists, an agenda against all of agriculture," said Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., asked whether because of the bill he as a meat lover will have to become a vegetarian.

Well, I somehow doubt it. At least for now, but at least you're thinking about it.

Labels: animal law, horse slaughter

Houston Chronicle: Texas lawmaker ends support for ban on horse slaughter

Yahoo! Finance: Veterinarians, Horse Owners and Horse Welfare Groups Join to Urge Legislators to Preserve the Option of Federally-Supervised Horse Processing

Today's House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection hearing on horse slaughter turned out to be rather crowded, dramatic, and full of odd coalitions and wild statements, like the following:

"PETA and the Humane Society argue that we shouldn't sell this meat to people in other countries to eat," said Mr. Koehler. "Isn't it presumptuous of vegetarians in the U.S. to pass judgment on the culinary practices of other countries? How would Americans react if Hindus told us to stop eating beef because the cow is sacred?"

The hearing on the bill lasted over three hours and was moved to a larger room to accommodate the interested parties.

Virginia Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chair of the House Agriculture Committee that previously refused to hold a hearing on related legislation (forcing this end-run to the jurisdiction of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the first place), said, "This legislation is woefully inadequate, emotionally misguided and fails to serve the best interest of the American horse and horse owner."

The full Energy and Commerce Committee's vote on the bill is scheduled for Wednesday. Presumably due to the controversy over the ECC's version of the bill, the House Agriculture Committee now plans to consider and vote on the legislation this Thursday.

The issue, though seemingly clear-cut, has been hotly contested and has caused a split among members of the same party, horse associations and veterinarians, and has created unusual alliances between the likes of Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens and animal rights activists, who rightly consider horse slaughter a barbaric practice.

Labels: animal law, horse slaughter

Today at 2pm EST, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will debate H.R. 503, a bill "to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes."

Contact the committee at (202) 225-2927 to register your support for H.R. 503.

Background from HSUS.

You can also listen to the hearing here, starting approximately 10 minutes after the session begins.

UPDATE: The editors of The Washington Times weigh in on the bipartisan support this bill is receiving:

...let us say that while we hardly align ourselves with the animal-rights lobby, what we've seen from the cattle ranchers and their legislators is nothing short of a perversion of democracy.

Whoa. Nice to see that last clause from guys like these. A big component of the animal rights lobby is stopping those ranchers and legislators from doing an end-run around democracy on a host of animal issues. Perhaps we can find more common ground here by uniting against enemies of democracy:

Whether one particularly cares about the slaughter of horses, every American should care deeply when lawmakers and agencies obstruct the lawmaking process or choose to ignore the law all together.

I'd like to second that.

Labels: animal law, horse slaughter