More on H.R. 6598, the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008

Nancy Schlepp of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation certainly has been making the rounds of the equine industry blogs these days. Today she's quoted in The Westerner, where she sez:

"Those in the Montana horse industry are concerned about the number of horses that would be affected".

Yes, they are concerned, but not about the welfare of the horses, as Nancy seems (in my opinion) to imply, but about the effect on the ranchers bottom line.

My question is, if there is a surplus of horses, whose fault is that?

The breeders and the ranchers of course, because they know they can always make a buck on the killing floors when the animal has otherwise served it's purpose.

Take away the profit and you'll see a hell of a lot fewer animals being bred to die.

And these people that argue that they must sell their horses to the butcheries because they can't afford to feed them and they'd otherwise starve ?
I notice no one is volunteering to donate the horses or otherwise direct the proceeds from the sale to help feed America's or the world's hungary.

TvNB

H.R. 6598, what do the ranchers really want ?

In a recent article in The Prairie Star entitled Horse owners concerned about proposed transportation legislation,  a fella named Bill Parker is quoted as saying "People who make their living with horses take good care of their horses".

But that doesn't gel, because the fella then goes on (according to the article) to state that the reason people are getting rid of their horses is because they "have no value", claiming that if they "have value", "people will find ways to care for" the horses.

So which is it? It seems to me that the equine industry is trying to have it both ways in their objections to H.R. 6598 (the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008 ).

It sounds to me that what they are really saying is this: "Horses are only useful to us for a finite period and once they are no longer useful, we want the right to kill them for profit ".

That's fine. It's a logical argument. If they want to equate horses with "disposable" livestock like cattle and poultry (which it sounds to me like they do), they can make a pretty good case for slaughter, at least an honest case.

Unfortunately, there's no such clarity coming from the opponents of this bill.

Example, speaking about "love" for the horses, a Nancy Schlepp is quoted in that article as saying that ,"the decisions we make are really for the welfare of the animals".

Sounds to me, in Montana at least, it's more for "the welfare" of the bottom line.

TvNB

Post Script:
If anyone feels my comments on this issue are unfair, I'd suggest they check out this article entitled Letter From CA: A Horse Story.
So much for the "love".