The
Washington Times has run a series of Letters to the Editor and
Editorials bemoaning the slaughter of horses. The latest diatribe by a
"former Republican Senate staffer and Army veteran" "with the
Society for
Animal Protective Legislation" belongs in a radical manifesto and not in
a
paper presented as American mainstream. In an attempt at brevity, the
following quotes from the article are answered with facts and common sense.
"Slaughtering horses is cruel". If this is so, then
slaughtering sheep and
lambs and steers and calves and turkeys and chickens and (well you get the
point) is cruel. The author and his fellow travelers know this and
intend
to use the horse precedent to achieve these radical ends incrementally.
"Critics are misrepresenting the brutal facts". Oh really?
Slaughter of
any animal has always been a brutal fact and it has always been avoided by
those not involved. Focus on the lurid aspects of this practice all you
want and take my advice that "if it bothers you as it does many, avoid it
and leave it to others".
"The debate over whether horses should be slaughtered in this country for
human consumption abroad is one that deserves the dissemination of accurate
information". I agree. So on what basis does a legitimate
disposition of
private property (a horse) become subject to the objections of others simply
because they have a "vote"? Maybe in a democracy but this is a
Republic. On
what basis does a legitimate business using property legally obtained from
willing sellers have to cease selling to others who want to use the products
they generate for human consumption, animal consumption, or any other of a
myriad of products? Willing sellers, willing buyers, willing
slaughterhouses, and willing sales to buyers, foreign or domestic, in a free
society should not fear the imposition of the values and emotions of others
no matter how rich or influential.
The term "killer buyers" is emotional hogwash. A buyer is a
buyer. When I
buy your used car am I supposed to give you a resume and promise to cherish
the car, no matter what? If you sell your horse, you sell it.
Neither you
nor any of your horsie club friends have any claim on nor control over
SOMEONE ELSE's PROPERTY (i.e. the horse in this case).
"Sadly, wild assumptions are what the pro-slaughter folks want the public
and legislators to base their decisions on". If this isn't the pot
calling
the kettle black, I don't know what is. The "wild assumptions"
in this
article are innumerable. What is "their decision" anyway?
If they can just
ban horse slaughter, all animal slaughter is in jeopardy (and that IS A
FACT)! If slaughter can be banned, does anyone not understand that
hunting
and fishing and trapping will be sucked into the same vortex of New Wave
Legislation, lawsuits, and enforced government regulation? Hello, is
anybody out there?
A "Mr. Stenholm" is smeared because "he has only recently been
hired by the
slaughterhouses". And this "former Republican Senate staffer
and Army
veteran" "currently with the Society for Animal Protective
Legislation" is
employed by? I know modern mores are "evolving" but isn't to
be "with" some
outfit mean that they pay you? It certainly did when I was a pup.
"There is also ample evidence from the Department of Agriculture that
slaughterhouse cruelty is an ongoing problem." Poor USDA, I guess
they are
helpless to stop "slaughterhouse cruelty". Care to guess what
these animal
rights out fits want to get the government to do with slaughterhouses?
If
you guessed close them down, you get an "A".
"I am one of the few people who have witnessed horse slaughter firsthand
without first being brought in by the industry". Not so. This
humble
writer worked for a couple of months unloading boxcars at an all-purpose
slaughterhouse (making pet food and mink food, etc.) while attending college
45 years ago. Some of my friends wouldn't work there but many of us saw
what went on and accepted it and went on with our lives. The same
squeamishness today is the grist for abolishing American freedoms and
establishing a socialist and all-powerful central government.
If "200 horse industry", "rescue and humane
organizations", and "every
living owner of a Kentucky Derby winning horse, horse-industry leaders, Hall
of Fame trainers, veterinarians" and "Willie Nelson, Bo Derek, and
William
Shatner" say "Horse slaughter is cruel and must come to an end"
good for
them. This is not Zimbabwe or Belarus where we merely get the ear of
all-powerful leaders and "SHAZAM" everyone else's rights are
eliminated. If
this august bunch wants to buy every horse for sale and put them up in
pastoral splendor and bury them with honors in some Arlingtonesque setting,
I take my hat off to them. If they can just bully our elected officials
to
vote away rights and jobs and the freedom to control our own property for
their own emotional imaginings THEN NO ONE AND NOTHING IS SAFE!
Finally, we are told "Those working to end horse slaughter have had to
divert much-needed resources". These sorts of "resources"
(i.e. money) are
always "much- needed". We are led to believe that they mean
"helping horses
in need" but they really mean working with (both behind the scenes and at
Animal Rights Conferences) all the other radical causes (ending ranching and
pet ownership and hunting and trapping and fishing and circuses and
rodeos,
etc) espoused by their partners (PETA, ALF, ELF, HSUS, AWI, etc.) and the
government bureaucrats seeking funding for new laws and politicians seeking
votes.
The one-year ban on horse slaughter was wrong-headed, un-American, a bad
precedent and improperly passed based on propaganda and radical agendas.
The "Bride of the One-Year Ban on Horse Slaughter" (the American
Horse
Slaughter Prevention Act, H.R. 503/S.1915) is now before Congress. Any
Representative or Senator that votes for this legislation should be opposed
for re-election and should feel the wrath of voters that now realize that
protecting the rights of horse owners and horse businesses involves more
than some celebrities' desires and the hopes of politicians for more tenure
in Congress.
If I didn't know better, I might assume that the Washington Times supports
this inflation of Federal power at the expense of individual liberties.
"Say it isn't so (Joe?)".
Jim Beers (A former bureaucrat and Navy veteran, now "with"
himself.)
7 April 2006
- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense) or at
http://www.jimbeers.net
- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak.
Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net
- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service
Wildlife Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow.
He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and
Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western
Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for
the
Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security
Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress;
twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60
Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to
expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville,
Virginia with his wife of many decades.
Permission
to post from the author.
