#HORSESLAUGHTER :A CONVERSATION AMONGST ACTIVISTS

I could never write what we can learn from seeing conversations between passionate and informed activists. So that is what this blog is about. Thank you Melanie Kirk! ~Heidi

Jignesh Dave
Shared publicly  -  Jun 29, 2013
 #horseslaughter
:( #horseslaughter

Feds approve horse slaughter plant in New Mexico; Missouri okay likely is next
http://www.ky3.com/news/ky3-feds-approve-horse-slaughter-plant-in-new-mexico-missouri-likely-next-20130628,0,2204373.story
2
13 comments

Sean P. O. MacCath-MoranJun 29, 2013

Interesting... Do you think folks will be more resistant to eating horses than they are to pigs?

Jignesh DaveJun 29, 2013+2
3
2


+Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran Eating horses? Why you want to slaughter such a magnificent animal any way?

Sean P. O. MacCath-MoranJun 29, 2013

Oh! I may have mistook your position, +Jignesh Dave; I personally can think of no rational reason that could justify needlessly killing any sentient being, including horses, cows, pigs, et al. Based on the article, there seemed to be a delineation drawn that suggested killing and eating one was "OK", but not the other, hence my confusion. Fair enough? =o)

Jignesh DaveJun 29, 2013+2
3
2


+Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran Shame part of this is we use them to the fullest until they get old and they do so, does it justify for no appreciation for what the work they have done and slaughter them and eat them? When it's their time to enjoy retirement?

Jignesh DaveJun 29, 2013+2
1
2


+Adelheid Adelliam what's your thought on this?

Adelheid AdelliamJun 29, 2013+2
3
2


My thoughts? +Jignesh Dave
Disgusted. Check these folks out, they seem relatively effective in this battle.
http://wildhorsepreservation.org/
On Twitter too, have spoken with them via email and tweets, seem like cool folks.
https://twitter.com/FreeWildHorses

Adelheid AdelliamJun 29, 2013+3
4
3


I'm sorry, +Jignesh Dave and +Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran , I didn't view the entire conversation. My thoughts? Don't eat animals. Period.
~Heidi

Melanie Kirk9:03 AM+1
0
1


Digusted and angered!!!! We need to have human slaughtering plants and I for one recommend Valley Meat Co.'s owners and employees be the first to try it.
Its not just that they are slaughtered, but the way they are killed. It is aweful. Once in the kill pen they try to escape but cannot which then makes them panic. (Horses are flight animals not fight animals)They are "stunned" in the head and most times the target is missed because the horses are moving and trying to escape. After many blows to the head,their throats are cut and they are hung upside down to drain the blood. Many times the horses are still alive during this whole process. It is beyond barberic and the horses suffer tremendously. It is not just "old used up"horses either. Many are young,healthy well trained horses. I own three rescued horses which would have went to slaughter. One is a professional jumper who comes from Northern Ireland. He was well known, as was his previous riders who were showing all over the world and even in magazines. Once he was over used and couldn't perform as well it was "off to slaughter for you." My second one is an OTTB who just wasn't fast enough to race and got passed around til I finally came along. And my third one is a very well mannered, well trained and young QH who occasionally goes lame because of an injury. (I was told she was beaten by a 2 *4 ) She was also headed for slaughter...I had to actually take her off the truck that was headed to New York. (Two more minutes and I would have been too late.)
They are my babies (my family) and I can't imagine life without them or the horror they could have gone threw. They are loyal and give me unconditional love....more then most humans. To slaughter such beautiful,innocent,majestic animals is the ultimate sin and I cannot comprehend how this continues to happen this day and age!!!

Adelheid Adelliam9:10 AM+1
2
1


+Melanie Kirk Can I have your permission to use this as a post instead of a comment, so that it can be seen? Let me know. ~Heidi

Melanie Kirk9:35 AM+1
0
1


+Adelheid Adelliam absolutely!! Its all the truth and how I really feel. :-)

Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran9:43 AM

Wow - thank you for that compelling description of the process, +Melanie Kirk; I know it's hard to "stand and bear witness" to such things.

As a vegan myself though, I'm curious (if you don't mind my asking) how long you've been vegan? As an advocate myself, this is something that's always of interest to me, you know?

Melanie Kirk10:26 AM

+Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran your welcome and I did not "stand and bear witness of such things." However, I have indeed done my homework on the process of horse slaughter that happens in Mexico. I have read many articles from undercover witnesses and seen videos of an actual slaughter that have been posted for people to see on the internet.
I'm not sure if your trying to be sarcastic ....so no,I don't know. I don't know you.
As far as being a vegan goes, I am not there YET,but iam working on it and when I do eat fish or poultry which is rare ,I try to buy local from farms. 

Adelheid Adelliam10:28 AM

Thank you +Melanie Kirk Will be back with it linked and we can share it. ~Heidi
Add a comment...

ANIMAL TESTING ~ CRUELTY FREE CLAIMS

From: UNCAGED: PROTECTING
HOW TO SPOT AN ANIMAL TESTING COMPANY

Many cosmetics companies misleadingly claim their products are ‘not tested on animals’ but are not so keen to admit that they still use animal-tested ingredients. In these crude poisoning tests, chemicals are force-fed to animals, injected into them, dripped into their eyes and rubbed into their raw skin. Here is an overview that explains how to recognise the companies that try to give the impression they are cruelty-free, when they're not!

Cosmetics companies can, broadly speaking, be divided into three categories with regard to their animal testing policies.

Chemical-producing companies that test on animals themselves or pay researchers to carry out animal tests on their behalf e.g.

Avon
L'Oreal 
Procter & Gamble 
Unilever 

They tend to be larger companies and often have a raft of different cosmetic brands, for example 'Dove' and 'Organics' are Unilever brands. 'Herbal Essences' and 'Max Factor' are P&G brands. 'Garnier' and 'Lancome' are L'Oreal brands, the Body Shop are now owned by L'Oreal too. So rule number one is always look to see who the parent company is. More recently (in 2012) several previously cruelty-free companies (Caudalie, L’occitane, Yves Rocher) returned to testing on animals in order to sell their products in China and Russia – where they demand animal data.

The second category are cosmetics companies that tend not to test on animals themselves but continue to buy, use and benefit financially from chemical ingredients that have recently been tested on animals by their suppliers. Many cosmetic brands fall into this category e.g.

Boots brands
Chanel
Clarins
Clinique
Estee Lauder
Givenchy
Revlon
Tresemme

Most of them are very clever at deceiving the public with the claims they make about animal testing.

The final category consists of companies that adhere to a Fixed Cut Off Date scheme. This means that the company will not buy or use ingredients that have been tested on animals by themselves or their suppliers after a set date (e.g. 1995). This is the only method by which manufacturers can send a clear message to their suppliers and the rest of the industry that the company is not prepared to profit from animal tested ingredients. Most animal testing for cosmetics takes place on "new to the world" chemicals. There are already thousands of chemicals with a proven safety record available.

You may be wondering why these companies are so keen to have access to new chemicals, especially when the majority of consumers are against animal testing for cosmetics? Well it's so they can market their products as ‘new’ and ‘improved’ - basically so they can make more money. For example P&G claim that their Olay Regenerist moisturizer beautifully regenerates skins’ appearance - thanks to their new Amino-Peptide Complex. And that their Total Effects moisturizer contains an exclusive VitaNiacin formula (the science part!). P&G and others are filling their products with all sorts of new chemical ingredients. It's to boost their marketing hype and P&G are recognised as world leaders. These companies are taking a gamble on the fact that most consumers assume that cosmetics are no longer tested on animals or are unable to see through their cleverly worded ‘animal testing policies’.

How To Interpret Cruelty-Free Claims

If you look at a product that makes no mention of animal testing - be suspicious. If a company can make a claim, no matter how meaningless, they usually will. It's hard to believe but there are no laws to prevent companies from deliberately misleading consumers about their animal testing practises.

PZ Cussons makers of 'Original Source' products say:

“None of our products are tested on animals. We support the development and acceptance of alternative methods which reduce or replace the use of animals in product safety evaluation.”

Notice they mention product testing but not ingredients. Many cosmetic companies also add statements about how much they support and invest in the development of alternative methods of testing - which is a ploy to distract consumers from the fact that they also still test on animals.

Clarins say:

“In 1987, Clarins was the first French company to cease product testing on animals.”

Again no mention of ingredients.

Estee Lauder say:

“We do not conduct animal testing on our products or ingredients, nor ask others to test on our behalf, except when required by law.”

Avon say:

“Avon does not test products or ingredients on animals, nor do we request others to do so on our behalf. Avon will conduct animal testing only when required by law.”

Seemingly strongly worded statements like this are made by many companies - and it sounds very comprehensive. But they are not being completely honest because they do still buy and use 'new to the world' ingredients that have been tested on animals during their development. Any legal requirement to test on animals only arises because of the companies desire to use new chemicals in the hope of increasing their sales. Many companies also include rabbit logos on their packaging - but this is no guarantee that the item is genuinely cruelty-free either.

It's not just cosmetics, many household cleaning products also contain animal tested ingredients.

For up-to-date guides see:

www.gocrueltyfree.org

www.naturewatch.org


All of the information about P&G’s animal testing correct at the time of archiving - November 2012. If these pages are still here – it means P&G still test on animals – we will remove this section only if they stop animal testing.