Horses being slaughtered in Montana (Great Falls: live in, dangerous, garden)

[Rickers]

Amadeous most likely found this thread on a web search and only joined to respond to it. I will be surprised if we ever hear from that person again.
I have seen horses in such bad shape I would like to slaughter the freaking owners. As far as horse slaughter houses being not pretty places goes, that has to be true, I toured a cattle slaughter facility once and it kind of grossed me out. Now I'm off for a burger, it's lunch time.

[Reziac]

If you saw your own innards dangling from a hook, they'd likely gross you out too

And that sure was a good chicken-and-cheese sandwich I just had for breakfast!

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by RamblinRoseRanch

Oh wait. That won't work. The number of horses *saved* from the slaughter plants so vastly out numbers the amount of people who voted to close them that it'll mean more than two horses per person. Let me crunch numbers and i'll get back to ya on that.

I'll make it easy for ya. HSUS has about 30,000 paid members (not the millions it claims -- it slaps the "member" moniker on anyone who ever had any contact with them whatsoever, including households they mail beg-forms to). Per annual slaughter figures, there are about 800,000 unusable horses available every year.

This means every actual paid HSUS member would need to make room for 26 horses every year. And that's not just 26 horses this year... it's another 26 next year, and the year after that. In ten years that's 260 horses apiece, which even if healthy cost about $3000 per year EACH to support.

Hey! If we could get HSUS to use its $126 MILLION dollar annual income to support all those horses.... <evil grin> ....they'd soon be broke, and unable to continue tormenting the rest of us.

[RamblinRoseRanch]

Muchos Gracias, Rez.
Another thing people don't realize, and it may have been mentioned before.....
Donations to national animal welfare groups don't go anywhere. They don't trickle down to your local rescue, they sit right at the point of recieving AND the majority of donations are not used in rescue efforts, but to pay the salaries of the higher-ups in those national groups. If someone wants to help animal rescue work, the best place to do that is on the local level- you might be surprised at how well you are recieved, be your donation of money/time/materials. PSA warning:
As always, check out your local organization before donating. It'd suck to be thinkin' you're givin' to help the critters and instead you just paid for a delivery pizza and a six pack for the *director*.

[Reziac]

Many of those local rescues make a killing too. Remember that "administrative expenses" are charity-speak for "owner's salary and benefits". I can think of one "local rescue" in MT whose "admin expenses" last year were $141,000 (per their publicly-available IRS form).

And since most are 501(c) charities, it's all tax-free.

I don't have a problem with someone making money while doing good works. I do have a problem with them lying to the public so they can suck more donations out of the good-hearted. My personal solution to this is to get rid of the tax-free status, and to start taxing all charity income that doesn't go right back out to the Good Works, whatever those may be.

[AQHA]

The answer to this horse slaughter debate is that there is no easy answer. No matter what they do its going to **** some people off. Those of us who know the horse industry know that a local horse slaughter that is well regulated is the best option for the horse.

A previous poster mentioned that those who are against horse slaughter should step up and rescue a few horses if they feel so strongly about it. I think this is a good suggestion, but I doubt many of them feel strong enough about it to put their money where there mouth is, yet they expect us to keep throwing good money after bad on horses that are dangerous or unsound.

Nobody wants to protect the horses more than the horseman, but we also need to protect our pocketbooks so we can't pay the food and medical bills on a horse that is not sound.

[RamblinRoseRanch]

Originally Posted by Reziac

Many of those local rescues make a killing too. Remember that "administrative expenses" are charity-speak for "owner's salary and benefits". I can think of one "local rescue" in MT whose "admin expenses" last year were $141,000 (per their publicly-available IRS form).

And since most are 501(c) charities, it's all tax-free.

I don't have a problem with someone making money while doing good works. I do have a problem with them lying to the public so they can suck more donations out of the good-hearted. My personal solution to this is to get rid of the tax-free status, and to start taxing all charity income that doesn't go right back out to the Good Works, whatever those may be.

I dunno about that.... I personally can't think of a local rescue (either here or TN) that makes a killing. Most can only meet the bills, not buying items they need, much less pay their director a salary. With donations and grants, the rescue I worked with in TN could afford, last year, to pay their director a 14,000 salary- and this was after ten years of *business*.

All 501(c) 3 rescues have to be registered with whatever state they are in and as such, their records are open for public perusal. Due dilligence, that's for sure.

[RamblinRoseRanch]

Originally Posted by AQHA

The answer to this horse slaughter debate is that there is no easy answer. No matter what they do its going to **** some people off. Those of us who know the horse industry know that a local horse slaughter that is well regulated is the best option for the horse.

A previous poster mentioned that those who are against horse slaughter should step up and rescue a few horses if they feel so strongly about it. I think this is a good suggestion, but I doubt many of them feel strong enough about it to put their money where there mouth is, yet they expect us to keep throwing good money after bad on horses that are dangerous or unsound.

Nobody wants to protect the horses more than the horseman, but we also need to protect our pocketbooks so we can't pay the food and medical bills on a horse that is not sound.

That was me. And I agree, i'd say a small, small percentage may have done something to care for the horses they *rescued* but I doubt it. General consensus from those against slaughter i've spoken to was "Let the rescues place the horses". This is why many closed down and others are bursting at the seams and refusing entry to other horses- this i'll save the world and YOU deal with the aftermath mentality. There's simply nowhere for these animals to go. In 2008 alone, Horse Haven of Tennessee took in more horses than in the previous eight years combined. And for a major local rescue, that's a lot of horses.

I guess as long as you can sit in your ivory tower and view the pretty ponies from above, you just don't smell how bad the manure stinks down here on the ground.

[Pashta]

Well said!!

[Rickers]

Peta members posting lengthy diatribes like that are not well liked in Montana. Just a heads up.
Peta is sooooooo screwed up and something needs to be done with the starving animals.
Slaughter away is what I say.
Also be sure to neuter pets as well as weird friends and relatives ! (There is a billboard on 93 that says that near Polson Montana)