Showing posts with label Missouri legislature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missouri legislature. Show all posts

Horse Slaughter

I was one of those fortunate teenagers who had a mother who understood my love for animals, and this included horses. When I was twelve, she gave me a young appaloosa named Little Bit. We'd lived next to the pasture she was born in and I'd gotten to watch her grow up so I knew her pretty well by the time Mom made the announcement. In brief, Mom understood that I needed Little Bit, perhaps more than I did. 

Mom was a rare kind of horse woman--one of the original horse whisperers. They liked her, trusted her, and would do things for her no one else could get them to do. In my early years we'd lived on a commercial beef ranch and Mom often trained the ranch's horses. She understood that most of one's relationship with this animal didn't begin in the saddle, but while the human's feet were still on the ground. 

So I spent better than a year building a relationship with Little Bit--on the lunge line, leading her around the pasture, grooming and feeding her every day. By the time I put a saddle on her back, we were an established element. It wasn't long before we were anticipating one another--she knew what I wanted before I said it, and I knew where she liked to be scratched best and that she loved carrots more than anything in the world.

I spent a lot of hours on this animal's back over the seven years. I went places I would never have gone on foot--exploring the rural back roads, paths, and hills around our home. Those rides shaped me and how I thought about nature and solitude and happiness. I have a lot to thank Little Bit for. 

 I still  clearly remember the day I sold her. I was in college, my family was moving and couldn't take her with them. It broke my heart, but I knew it wasn't fair to her and that there was no way I could commute back and forth from college to care for her and as I was a broke and on my own, I couldn't pay anyone else to take care of her either. I'm almost forty-seven years old and I still ache a little when I think of that horse. (She went to live with a family and became a huge pet, ridden by their children, fed candy, and allowed to hang out in their front yard--I couldn't have asked for her to wind up in a better place). 

I've not been fortunate enough to live where I could keep horses in the years since then.  So I am not a "horse person", but I am (as we all know by now) an animal lover and horses are high on that list.

So imagine my dismay when I saw this story in the headlines: Rockville community welcomes idea of re-opening plant for horse processing . The woman behind this idea, Sue Wallis, (known among some circles as "Slaughterhouse Sue") surfaced in Missouri back in January and attempted to convince a small town not far from here that putting a horse slaughtering plant in their town would be good for their economy. Fortunately the towns folk felt otherwise and made it very, very clear that they didn't want the stuff she was pedaling. We hoped this would be the last of her. Sadly it wasn't. And this time, I'm not sure we can stop her. She's got the law on her side and money to burn and a peculiar obsession with slaughtering horses. 

A couple of years ago the US government quietly changed the wording in a law that disallowed for funding of the inspection of horse slaughterhouses. This law had been in place since 2006. The argument was that people were either a) allowing their horses to starve to death or dumping them because of the economy being so bad or b) sending them outside the country to Mexico to be slaughtered inhumanely. They argued that it would be far kinder to euthanize old and sick horses at the slaughterhouses than to allow them to starve to death in a pasture. 

Horse people (and I mean people who love them and keep them because they are passionate about them--not those who look at them as just investments) will tell you this is a big, fat lie. No more horses are "starving to death" now than when slaughterhouses than pre 2006 (More info here ). And most of the people who are sending them to Mexico are people who have no emotional attachment to begin with. Professional horse breeders--Thoroughbreds, Quarter horses, etc produce 35,000 horses a year (at least). This translates to an excess of horses--most of them will not run fast enough or "look pretty enough" or have the right temperament to win--to make the breeders money. So what happens to these horses?  Especially with our current economy? Guess. Go ahead. 

Summer camps will often purchase several horses every summer for their campers to ride and then sell them off cheap at auctions the end of the summer because they don't want to feed them all winter. Commercial trail riding operations do the same thing. Sometimes owners, who are desperate to place a horse (or horses) they can't feed anymore, will take them to auctions. Guess who buys them? Kill buyers who then turn around and sell them to the slaughterhouses. Wanna hear something really disturbing? Often the kill buyers will pretend to be someone who wants a horse as a pet. Worse yet? Some of the horses are stolen and shopped off to slaughter before the owner knows where to look.

And to demolish one more lie--these places don't want the old and sick horses. The USDA won't allow them to sell them as food. People who've been watching these places will tell you that the grand majority of the horses standing around in the pens outside the slaughterhouses are healthy looking, young animals. Many of them are clearly well bred. Their only fault? They don't have any place to go. 

Read up on their supposedly "humane" practice of euthanasia and you'll find another lie. Horses cannot be euthanized the same way cattle are. They're built differently and behave differently than cattle, pigs, and sheep do when frightened. They have longer necks, toss their heads, and rear. Unlike cattle who've been bred to simplicty, horses are more complex emotionally--they recognize a trap when they see it and attempt to flee it--food animals--not so much. All too often the attempt to stun them into passivity doesn't work and the people wind up eviscerating them while they're still alive. 

The lies compound after this--Sue and people like her promise employment and an improved economy to people in small towns. There is not one instance of a community benefiting from these places. In fact, many suffer from increased crime rates and their economy actually worsens as those from out of the area, with no vested interest in the community, move in to take on the jobs. The image of the town suffers--who wants to visit a town famous for its equine slaughterhouse? Anybody? 

So where is this meat going to go? Overseas to countries with fewer rules about horse meat, to markets with poor or no inspection process.  It won't be approved for markets here because, unlike cattle, pigs, and sheep, who are tracked from the day they are born--with every dose of every medication being approved, horses aren't. Moreover, the medications routinely given to horses (wormers, pain relievers, antibiotics) have been proven unsafe for human consumption (some are downright dangerous). 

Have you ever desperately wished you could change something or prevent an injustice?  This is me right now and I want to fix this. 

What about you? 
















A saga of a dog, a skunk, and why bureaucracy stinks

I'm coming up for air very briefly--the semester is nearly done (two weeks left). More on that later.

 Meanwhile, this is why I'm taking a break from studying. Bear with me folks, I'm upset on the behalf of total strangers and this is the only way I can give air to it. I wish I could fix it, I really do.

Believe it or not--the link below is probably the most balanced take on the story of all the articles I've read (I've been following this as I've had time since last Friday).

http://www.petside.com/article/macys-story-was-she-wrongfully-euthanized#comments

Just in case you'd prefer a version of the story told in my inimitable style (asides and my perspective on the world included)---

A little over a week ago Lucas Wright heard his dog barking and went to investigate. He discovered a skunk chasing the dog around their fenced in yard (for those of you who don't know anything about this creature--this is not normal. Skunks avoid trouble at all costs, generally choosing to flee the scene only spraying when they feel cornered--they're also extremely slow with short fat legs so larger animals can pretty easily out run them).  The man grabbed his gun and shot the skunk, but not before it sprayed the dog.

Because the skunk's behavior was so unusual he contacted the health department and let them know about the incident. They decided to test the skunk's carcass for rabies. It came back positive. Unfortunately hed told them about the dog too. And unfortunately the dog's rabies shot was not current. So health department contacted the sheriff who then told them that they were required to surrender the dog to the pound to be quarantined.

The owner did as he was told. He made it clear he didn't want the dog euthanized and had already made the decision to quarantine the dog. After some discussion, he learned that he would have to quarantine the dog at a vet's office and that it would be expensive. He insisted that this was not a problem (are you getting the idea that this was a beloved family pet? Good). Shortly after this conversation, he received another call from the health department who then told him quarantine was not an option and that they were going to have to euthanize the dog (they stated that the state vet had made the decision). The man (a city alderman, by the way) called a lawyer and the local TV station and went down to try and talk them out of it. The person at the pound informed them that quarantine was not an option and refused to bend. Within hours, Macy was gone.



The state's since spoken up, making it clear that they said no such thing. Their paperwork indicates that the option of euthanasia had remained. In other words, someone somewhere either a) got their wires crossed or b) lied for reasons of their own. The county now claims that the owner knew about the option of quarantining the dog and that it was in the paperwork they gave him (the owner only received the paperwork AFTER THE DOG WAS EUTHANIZED). I guess the director of this fiasco did not give this same paperwork to their staff.

Oh yeah--the dog was tested posthumously for rabies and the test came back negative. This does not mean that the dog hadn't contracted it, by the way, just that it hadn't had time to take effect (it takes from 45 days to 6 months). However there was no sign that the dog had ever come into direct contact with the skunk (the sheriff acknowledged this to the press). And rabies cannot be passed along through skunk-spray, only saliva. In other words, this dog would have been a good candidate for quarantine.

By the way, Macy was a local hero--she'd saved the father and one of the children from a dog attack some years before.

There's a faintly happy ending to this story--sorta. A kind stranger heard the story on the news and was so moved by it that she contacted Macy's family and offered them a puppy from her new litter of English Mastiffs. And while the woman offering the pups and the family have made it clear that there is no replacing Macy, this will help the children (did I mention that Macy belonged to two children as well?) move forward.

Do not mistake my anger and sympathy for this family for a dismissal of their responsibility. The dog should have had her rabies shot. While there is some question about how often animals should have these vaccinations (every three years may be too often), there is no question about the fact that they should have them. But it is quite obvious that the health department overstepped their authority on this, that someone somewhere dropped the ball in a big way.

While I realize that this was just one dog and just one skunk in just one small town, and that it isn't the end of the world as we know it, I see it as a terrible symptom of a much bigger problem. It is stories like this, both big and small that foster a distrust of the government's ability to make unattended decisions. Too many layers of too many unaccountable people with too many loopholes available to them are what creates situations like this.

Here's a quote from the above linked article that really, really pisses me off (the person speaking is the administrator of the local health department) --

“We understand this was a much loved pet, but they did the right thing,” says McReynolds.


Did they really do the right thing? Apparently not. The worst part about this is that it is extremely obvious that someone somewhere dropped the ball and no one is willing to apologize to these people for having screwed up. This and a promise that they've taken steps to avoid this ever happening again is the only thing that's going to get rid of the health dept's black eye and earn the lost trust of their local community. I promise you if I lived in Webster County (I don't) and had an animal that came into contact with a rabid skunk, and if there was a doubt about my animal's rabies shots, I'd probably quietly quarantine the animal at home or on a neighbor's property and say nothing to the county.

Why? Because I don't trust our local, state, or federal government to do the right thing. Not even when it comes to a dog.




The Will of the People

I steer away from politics on here most of the time. My blog is largely a personal journal of my life and times. Sometimes it's interesting to others, sometimes it's not. My themes are pretty typical down home stuff and I'm fairly predictable. I deeply appreciate those who do read here--it's not lost on me that you actually take time out of your day to read my navel gazing tirades and are kind enough to comment. So thank you very much.

 What I don't do is blog to stir up controversy. That's not me in real life either. But every so often something important enough comes along to shake me out of my soft fuzzy, mommy blogging haze and I feel the need to respond to it. This is one of those times.

There is a disturbing trend in Missouri politics that I was unaware of until a law that I feel strongly about was changed after it was placed on the ballot and voted on by the people.

Chances are, if you live in the US and you're a passionate dog owner, you probably know the story of Proposition B , also known as the Puppy Mill Law of Missouri, and you've very likely formed an opinion that places you on one side or the other in the debate. You probably know that the law was very narrowly voted into existence by the people and that recently the Missouri legislature rewrote it completely, rendering it gutless and useless.

 After pushing past all the propaganda put out by both the proponents and the detractors, I read the bill for myself, studied the wording and even prayed about it some. I am well aware of how the wrong law, no matter how well-intentioned, can make a mess of things, but I saw nothing in it that would do much more than inconvenience people who treat dogs like cattle, whose primary interest in them is in how well they fill their bank accounts.

And, just to be clear-- I have nothing against breeders who view dogs as companion animals and pets first and sources of income second. I know some of these. They are fine people. Their dogs are "family members" and when they breed they do so carefully and screen prospective owners to be sure that they understand the commitment they're making. They take back puppies that didn't work out and remain a solid source of advice for the owners who seek it out. They do not sell to puppy stores or vendors and do not ship puppies to other states without having met the prospective owner. Proposition B would not affect them because they don't keep enough dogs to be considered a commercial breeding operation and their dogs generally live in the house and receive the best of care anyway. They work with breed rescues and animal shelters to help find home for dogs that have fallen into bad situations. If I was going to buy a dog (and so far God has provided . . .). I would go to someone like this.  

So I voted a very well-informed, Yes. I am absolutely sure I am not the only voter in the state who did her homework and made the decision thinkingly and for the Missouri legislature to indicate that we-the voters-didn't understand what we wanted and to set about correcting our "mistake" indicates their disdain for us more clearly than they know. I am deeply disappointed in them.

I clearly have lots and lots of strong feelings concerning dogs and how they should be treated and I'm furious about the changes to the law, but that's not the only thing I'm concerned about. For me, this is becoming about a state government that feels free to ignore the will of the people either because they think we don't know any better or because someone offered them a lot of money/campaign support to alter laws we've voted and agreed on. I turned up the following instances with just a little light digging.

In 1999, the Missouri voters said No to a concealed weapon measure. Four years later, the Missouri legislature passed one anyway. In fact, they expanded it.

In 2006, Missouri voters said yes to a bill (ironically known as Proposition B) that would allow minimum wage to first be adjusted to coincide with the federal minimum wage and then be adjusted annually based on the consumer price index. The current legislature has set about repealing that law and capping minimum wage at federal level.

In 2009, the Missouri voters said Yes to Proposition C, a bill meant to wean our state off fossil fuel driven energy. This bill was actually placed on the ballot by private citizens who went door to door getting signatures on a petition. It passed with room to spare. The idea was to have at least 15% of our energy coming from clean renewable sources by 2021. The Missouri legislature is now in the process of making sure that this law never has the intended effect.

And now this. Clearly this most recent event is not the first time they've done this, it is simply the first time they've been this transparent about it.  I wonder how often this has happened without our knowledge?

We've been asleep at the wheel, folks, and it's time to wake up.

Oh--and here's a list of those who voted Yes to changing (the most recent) Proposition B. You'll notice it's bipartisan. I'm not sparing anyone on this one. And when the lists on the changes to the minimum wage law and Proposition C come out--I'll bring those here too.

REPUBLICANS VOTING YES
      Dan Brown, Rolla.
      Jason Crowell, Cape Girardeau.
      Bob Dixon, Springfield.
      Kevin Engler, Farmington.
      Jack Goodman, Mount Vernon.
      Mike Kehoe, Jefferson City.
      Brad Lager, Savannah.
      Rob Mayer, Dexter.
      Brian Munzlinger, Williamstown.
      Brian Nieves, Washington.
      Mike Parson, Bolivar.
      David Pearce, Warrensburg.
      Chuck Purgason, Caulfield.
      Ron Richard, Joplin.
      Scott Rupp, Wentzville.
      Rob Schaaf, St. Joseph.
      Kurt Schaefer, Columbia.
      Bill Stouffer, Napton.
      Jay Wasson, Nixa.
      
      REPUBLICANS VOTING NO
      Jane Cunningham, Chesterfield.
      Tom Dempsey, St. Charles.
      Will Kraus, Lee's Summit.
      John Lamping, St. Louis.
      Jim Lembke, St. Louis.
      Luann Ridgeway, Smithville.
      Eric Schmitt, Glendale.
      
      DEMOCRATS VOTING YES
      Victor Callahan, Independence.
      
      DEMOCRATS VOTING NO
      Maria Chappelle-Nadal, St. Louis.
      Kiki Curls, Kansas City.
      Tim Green, St. Louis.
      Jolie Justus, Kansas City.
      Joe Keaveny, St. Louis.
      Ryan McKenna, Crystal City.
      Robin Wright-Jones, St. Louis.







Older Post ►
 

Copyright 2011 wings on the way down is proudly powered by blogger.com