A hornet’s nest (continued)

Last time, I briefly ventured onto the thorny subject of what to do with our equine friends when they are no longer wanted/needed/useful, especially with the demise of the slaughterhouses here in the USA. Of course there is never enough space in a small column such as this to do the subject justice, nor is there ever likely to be because it emotes such diametrically opposed views between those who are pro-slaughter and those who are anti-slaughter at whatever cost.

Suffice to say for those of us who try to look at it logically (not emotionally) we can see both good and bad in each point of view, but rather than continually harangue one another over who is right and who is wrong, we just want to see a solution to the problem being found and then being implemented. 

So here’s a few thoughts carried over from the Linked-in forum I told you about in my last column — see what you make of it:

“While we continue to argue amongst ourselves, we do not come up with a viable solution to the unwanted horse problem and one which is in the best interests of the horse. In order to find a solution we need to remove the emotive element from the argument and then look at what is the best, most humane, most effective and most enforceable plan to put into practice — AND REALLY THINK IT THROUGH!

If as someone said earlier, close to 135,000 horses were sent from the USA last year to slaughter in Mexico and Canada and we introduce a ban on their transportation to those countries in the future, then what happens to the next 135,000 horses on the list and the 135,000 after that?

Yes the knee-jerk reaction is to ban the transport of live animals, but with no slaughterhouses locally to deal with the numbers (nor even rendering plants to cope with the naturally demised) what will happen to the unwanted horse population? Don’t talk about Rescue Centers, because most of those are already chock-full and can barely cope with the “residents” they do have. Breeding control is another possibility, but the effects of that will not be felt for several years into the future — if not decades.

Undoubtedly a combination of several factors will be the optimum long-term solution, but without a concerted, consensual and determined action from us all, we will never achieve what is needed both now and in the future.

As Mr Benjamin Franklin once said, the only certainties in life are death and taxes. Death is part of the cycle of life and you cannot ignore it — face the facts, it does and will happen to all of us one day so we need to stop trying to avoid the issue and learn to deal with it. Like it or not, horses die and it is our responsibility to make sure that what happens both before and immediately after that event is carried out with care, attention, sympathy and respect. If you think about that and think about the consequences of each and every action you propose before you propose it, then you are some way to finding the answer… whatever that answer may eventually be.”

That in a nutshell sums up my feelings on the matter, but in a Democracy we are taught that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so here’s a radical thought for you: Maybe it just needs someone influential to take the lead on the matter and say “this is what is going to happen and everyone else is just going to have to shut up and get on with it” — the sort of thing a certain Mr President might say perhaps?

David Hasbury’s column runs every other Wednesday. Carl Stafford returns next week.