The Squeakin’ Saddle
Articles and snippits about the West and the things that make it up. Fact fiction and other made up stuff.
Just between you, me and the web…
By TL Bush
E-mail: tbg@uswranglers.com
In an effort to develop a greater base of potential advertisers, I recently decided to delve into a field I know little about, “The Internet.” I have been told how simple it is to discover anything and everything you could possibly want to know about anything. I’m sure that is correct, but who wants to spend that much time on the Internet just trying to find something. I found it very confusing and not as simple as others had said.
I called one of my, computer nut, brothers and related my frustrations. This brought about much conversation about my I.Q., doubts about same parentage, maybe I was actually adopted from a pack of wolves and the determination that a book titled “Computers for idiots” was above my comprehension level. It’s never easy getting an answer from any of my brothers.
After capitulation that he was probably correct in his assumption, we continued my education. First we found the Google.com search engine; I must add they are very thorough. Then I typed in the words western store and hit, search the web. Are you ready for this?
Western Store produced 5,240,000 hits indicating western store as a part of their format.
Saddles produced 3,250,000 and included bicycle seats and saddle shoes.
Horse Feed - 1,240,000,
Cowboy Hats - 357,000,
Cowboy Boots - 659,000,
Horse Barns - 166,000,
Fencing - 284,000,
Horse Arenas - 89,500,
Western Wear - 2,530,000,
Horse Trailer Dealers - 711,000,
Horse Waterer’s - 10,900
And on and on and on. I might add each of the 40 categories; I did a search for, included porn sites in the results. No, I did not open the porn sites. I’ve been told that is a good way to get a virus and I’m not ready for that with my limited computer skills.
This attempt to locate western stores, that might become advertisers, became very frustrating.
Again a call was placed to ‘brother dearest’ and I was told of placement in a search engine and how it costs to be listed in the top so many. This didn’t help my disposition. After hours of reading through the search results the phone rang and I was told if I enclosed my search request in quotes it would narrow the search. So I did.
He was right. Instead of millions there were now only hundreds of thousands or thousands. Big deal!
I have come to this conclusion.
If you are a small or large company with a web site and you are not in the top 10 in a search engine you don’t stand a chance.
There are millions of potential Equiclients, (a new word I have penned) that will never see your page.
There are ways you can link your page to others that might produce additional hits if enough people go to the other web site and find your link and are interested in your product or service. The problem remains, how to let those people that are looking for what you have to offer, know how to find you.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF A BAN ON THE HUMANE SLAUGHTER (PROCESSING) OF HORSES IN THE UNITED STATES
Federal legislation was proposed to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be humanely slaughtered (processed) for human consumption, and for other purposes. The intent of the legislation was to enact a ban in the United States on processing horses for human consumption. The legislation does not provide fiscal support that will be needed to respond to an ever increasing number of unwanted, neglected, and abused horses. Neglect and abuse cases most often originate due to a lack of economic resources to adequately maintain a horse’s health. Everyone supports and is committed to the humane treatment of horses; there are consequences of banning horse processing.
It is my intent to identify and review the consequences of a ban in the United States on the processing of horses for human consumption:
1. There now is a larger number of abandoned or unwanted horses.
2. Many public animal rescue facilities are currently filled with unwanted horses. With no funding allocated to manage a large increase in horses, this will likely become the responsibility of these facilities.
3. The cost of maintaining unwanted horses accumulates over time:
A conservative estimate of the total cost of caring for unwanted horses, based upon 2007 statistics, is $250 million;
Cumulative annual maintenance costs of otherwise processed horses, since the year 2000, would have exceeded more than $600 million in 2007.
4. The export value of horse meat for human consumption was approximately $26 to $35 million. The ban on processing has eliminated these annual revenues.
5. The option of rendering or cremating horses has become cost prohibitive for most owners. Private-land burial and disposal in landfills is not allowed in many states because of a negative impact on the environment.
6. The BLM (Bureau of Land Management) Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Program has been negatively impacted by a ban on horse processing. BLM horses and an increasing number of unwanted horses are competing for adoption.
Horse processing facilities offered a humane end-of-life option for approximately 1% of the United States horse population. Thousands of horses are neglected or abandoned because of a processing ban.
The economic impact and future unaccounted for, economic impact of banned horse processing for human consumption is substantial.
Supporters did not address the costs of such a ban. Horse owners have realized a direct impact from lower horse sale prices. Local and state governments are going to be adversely impacted by increased costs of regulation and care of unwanted or neglected horses.
Welfare for unwanted horses
Horses exist in our society, for recreational to agricultural uses. They are also owned for companionship or pleasure without the intention of processing for human consumption although horses are considered livestock (U.S. Congress, 2002).
Welfare plans for horses are minimal since American people expect the treatment and standard of care for horses to be similar to what they expect for family pets. Even though horses are housed, fed, transported and handled like livestock.
In most areas, services and resources equivalent to that received by dogs and cats do not currently exist for horses.
A tough decision for horse owners is when and how to end a horse’s life. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure the horse’s life ends painlessly and with minimal distress.
Euthanasia
The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek terms “eu”, meaning good, and “thanatos,” meaning death. A good death is one that occurs with minimal pain and at the appropriate time to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering.
The AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) reports two accepted methods of euthanasia for horses:
1. Overdose of a barbiturate anesthesia, administered with a sedative;
2. A physical method of euthanasia from a gunshot or penetrating captive bolt to the cerebral hemisphere and brainstem resulting in an immediate painless and humane death.
The estimated United States horse population is 10+ million; approximately 1% was marketed annually for processing for human consumption.
It’s a known fact that “riding” horses were the majority of candidates for processing as opposed to draft or “wild” horses. Horses at processing plants had substantially poorer foot and body condition than horses observed at sales facilities. These characteristics demonstrate symptoms of lack of care. .
These horses may experience chronic pain, lack adequate nutrition and vaccinations and suffer from the absence of common care practices such as routine parasite programs.
Processing plants in the United States helped in maintaining horse welfare by preventing old and/or unsound horses from further neglect or abuse. Owners with economic problems often can not provide long-term, quality care. Thus, the horse’s health and welfare are now being compromised by this ban on horse processing.
Animal Control Facilities
Neglected horses are reportable to animal control agencies at the local level in most areas in the United States. Animal control agencies are usually administered by the police or sheriff’s department, agricultural commissioner, or public works department. The limited resources of animal control agencies are primarily used for control of dogs and cats. These agencies vary from having no facilities with little or no personnel expertise, to extensive shelter facilities with trained personnel. Following this ban on horse processing, local communities are responsible for abandoned and neglected horses on a level equivalent to current dog and cat programs. Most agencies have had to generate more funding, educate their personnel, build facilities for housing horses, and reallocate their limited funds to include horses and support veterinary services to properly care for abandoned and neglected horses.
Public information published on the number of horse neglect cases from the years 1994 and 1995 in California showed there were a total of 2,177 malnutrition cases, with 321 horses impounded for periods ranging from 15 days to 7 months. The average cost for impounding was $10.50 per day or $315 per month. The most common reason for horse neglect is owner ignorance, with economic hardship the second leading cause. Litigation costs averaged $5,735 per case. The cost of litigation for cases involving animals is a consideration for the regulatory agencies in proceeding with animal neglect cases.
Without the option and economic incentive to process horses, the number of animal neglect cases increased in local communities.
Most animal control agencies do not have the capacity to expand their programs and facilities, to accommodate abandoned and neglected horses, resulting in additional public and horse health risks. Neglected horses pose a disease risk to the general horse population and the public’s health by hosting or transmitting diseases. Without proper vaccination programs, diseases such as West Nile virus, encephalitis, rabies, or tetanus can occur, elevating the risk of illness to both humans and other horses.
The risk of insect-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease (tick) and West Nile virus (mosquitoes), increases without effective pest control.
Horses without proper care and compromised health serve as a host or transmit diseases that are infectious to people or other animals. The number of horses as potential hosts of diseases infectious to humans and other animals has increased with this ban on processing.
Economic Considerations of a Ban on Horse Processing
Horses have many uses in America today. The majority of horses are used for pleasure riding and recreational use. Horses are still used for work on ranches, farms, riding schools, and for carriage rides. In addition, many other countries and cultures worldwide use horses as a food source.
The processing of horses in the United States for the export of meat, and other products, is a touchy issue for many. While value arguments abound, economic implications of this ban also exist.
Industry Facts
The “Economic Impact of the Horse Industry in the United States,” commissioned by the
AHC, (American Horse Council) estimates the horse industry contributes $49 billion in direct economic impact on the United States economy.
In 2005, 94,037 horses were processed in the U.S. That is well below the 345,900 processed in 1990.
The United States exports live horses, meat and horse products. Over the past decade, the U.S. exported horses to more than 60 countries, with Japan, Mexico and Canada being the primary destinations by value
Horse meat exports go primarily to the European Union (EU) countries of Belgium and France.
This horse processing ban has impacted the horse industry and the economy in four major areas:
1. Cost of maintaining unwanted horses;
2. Building and improving infrastructure to sustain unwanted horses;
3. Environmental impact of horse euthanasia and carcass disposition;
4. Revenue loss from the sale and export of horsemeat.
Costs until Natural Death
Approximately 65,000 – 95,000 horses were processed for food export each year in the United States. A conservative estimate of the total economic impact of this ban on horse processing for export has been reported to be $152 million to $222 million per year. The number of unwanted horses is certainly increasing as the problem compounds each year as unwanted horses are not processed but become the responsibility of owners, not-for-profit organizations, or local governments. Consequently, the cost to owners and taxpayers from a ban on the processing of horses will quickly reach billions of dollars.
The fact is, low to moderate income families own horses, not only the wealthy and affluent.
Approximately 45% of horse owners have an annual household income between $35,000 and $75,000. A small change in the average horse owner’s financial status may result in the inability to provide their horse an appropriate standard of care. Eventually, there will be a need to sell a horse which has become a financial hardship. If unable to sell, these owners may not have the financial resources required to euthanize and dispose of the horse due to the high cost.
Other horses have limited usefulness due to injury or aggressive behavior. Horses like this will not attract a buyer. If, an abundance of these horses become available, then saturation of the rescue market will likely result and this will lead to higher demand for these facilities.
Now that processing is no longer an option, owners’ choices are reduced. This reduction in management options has lead to substandard levels of care, neglect, or even abandonment.
In recent years there has been an emergence of horse rescue organizations responding to an increasing number of neglected or unwanted horses.
Funding remains critical for these organizations, striving to provide an adequate standard of care. The goals of these organizations are to rescue, rehabilitate, retrain, and redistribute, via sale or adoption, these horses. Due to the long natural life span of horses, approximately 30 years, these facilities face a potentially prolonged, costly ownership period for each horse they obtain.
The cost to maintain an unwanted horse until its natural death averages $2,340 per year per horse. Using a conservative estimate of a useful life of 20 years, followed by an 11 year retirement period, the average maintenance cost could be as high as $25,740. This estimate does not include additional veterinary costs.
For many individuals, maintaining the horse until natural death is cost prohibitive.
For rescue facilities, the financial costs can, and do quickly, overcome the capacity of the facility to meet the need of an increasing number of unwanted horses
There are costs to the horse industry from this ban on horse processing. The most obvious is the direct annual maintenance cost of unwanted horses that would have been disposed of through processing.
Annual and Cumulative Maintenance Costs
The annual maintenance cost represents the cost to maintain the inventory of unwanted horses that would otherwise be processed. Dependent on the number of horses processed, the annual cost ranges from $100 million in 2003, to $195 million in 2007.
The annual cost, however, understates the total cost required, because horses that would have been processed in previous years now remain in the horse population. Using a rough estimate that eighty percent of the previous years’ horse inventory survived, the cumulative annual maintenance cost would have exceeded $513 million dollars in 2007.
Environmental Impact of this Horse Processing Ban
A significant issue is the safe and proper disposal of horse carcasses to eliminate hazards to people or other animals.
States and local regulations dictate potential carcass disposal methods:
1. Burial
2. Rendering
3. Disposal at land fills
4. Incineration
Burial options are dictated by local restrictions concerning ground and surface water contamination, distance restrictions from neighbors, proximity to previous burial sites and depth of burial requirements. Due to the large size of a hole required to bury a horse, costs can range from $300 to more than $500. The burial option has become increasingly restrictive due to negative environmental decomposing of horse carcasses.
Rendering has become less available as an option for horse carcass disposal. Rendering processes animal carcasses into usable proteins and fats that were once commonly used in animal feeds. Disease concerns have decreased the marketability of rendered products. Although horses are not BSE carriers, it is the declining market in rendered products and thus the decline in the number of rendering plants reduces options for horse carcass disposal. There is also some concern with the presence of drug residues, in rendered products, from chemically euthanized horses. For the limited areas where rendering is a disposal option, the cost for the rendering company to pick up the carcass ranges from $125 to $350 or more.
Landfills disposal is also becoming increasingly difficult. Local regulations and the rules of the individual firms operating the landfill dictate disposal options. Landfills that accept horse carcasses will likely have a drop-off charge.
Cremation is a secure method of carcass disposal, but it is costly. The cost to cremate a horse ranges from $600 to $2,000 depending on fuel costs. Incinerators must conform to air pollution regulations.
For all disposal methods, except for on-site burial, transportation of the horse carcass to the disposal site creates issues pertaining to cost, disease transmission and potential exposure to the public of deceased animals. The increasing cost and difficulty of carcass disposal is emerging as a significant issue for horse owners with limited financial capacity to care for an unwanted horse. Eliminating horse processing as an option for unwanted horses has increased the demand on the already constrained methods of horse carcass disposal and creates a new source of a negative impact.
Costs of Unwanted Horses:
The value of United States horsemeat sold for processing in 2002 was approximately $26 million. A federal ban on processing horses for meat export has eliminated these revenues completely. An even larger negative economic impact is that unwanted horses, which in the past could have been sold for processing, will now become a cost to the horse owner as he/she are required to dispose of the horse in some other way. The loss in revenue is now combined with an expense for disposal of the horse. The result is all horses become somewhat less valuable. Eliminating the possibility of selling a horse for processing was estimated to decrease the value by approximately $304 per horse. This suggests the processing ban has imposed; an annual decrease in value for horses that would have been processed in the United States to be between $19 and $30 million.
These figures represent an extremely conservative estimate of the financial impact of this processing ban, and they account only for the direct loss in revenues to horse owners who would have sold their horses for processing.
Eliminating a Protein Source Currently Provided by the U.S.:
Worldwide production of horsemeat has grown to 720,000 metric tons (MT) in 2005, which is up 38% since 1990. This is equivalent to 4.7 million horses, up from 2.8 million horses in 1990. In predominantly English speaking countries (such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, etc.) the consumption of horse meat is minimal; a cultural tradition does not include horses as food. Yet those countries are often exporters of horsemeat to non-Anglo countries that do consume this protein source. The leading horsemeat consumers appear to be the Chinese, who annually process an equivalent of 15% of the total United States horse population to provide their population with protein.
Nutritionally, four ounces (4 oz) of horsemeat contains 20% greater protein than high quality beef cuts, 25% less fat, nearly 20% less sodium, double the iron and 1 mg less cholesterol than a 4 oz serving of beef sirloin (USDA, 2006). When compared to ground beef, horsemeat has 55% more protein, 25% less fat, 30% less cholesterol and 27% less sodium.
Now if the United States policy forbids selling to food commerce, there may be potential political ramifications. Americans do not eat horsemeat, but others do. The largest consumption areas are developing countries. Loss of U.S. horses as a protein source will deprive many less fortunate and far older cultures than ours of a substantial food source.
Increase in Competition for the Wild Horse Adoption Program
An increased supply of low-value horses due to a processing ban has also created direct competition with the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) National Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Program. The BLM program has been negatively impacted by the increased competition for adoption placement between BLM horses and unwanted horses that would have otherwise been processed. This will increase the cost of the BLM program if they have a larger inventory of BLM horses to maintain due to lower adoption rates. The BLM enforces strict standards of care for horses in their control, whereas there are few, if any, governmental regulations in place specifically for rescue facilities.
Conclusion
The direct economic impact of banning horse processing for human consumption is substantial. Supporters have not addressed the inevitable costs of such a ban. Horse processing facilities offered a humane option for approximately 1% of the United States horse population. Welfare of the horse is the primary concern; tens of thousands of horses will be neglected or abandoned with this processing ban. Local and state governments are also adversely impacted as a result of the ban. Horse owners are feeling a direct impact from lower horse sale prices. The severe economic consequences of this ban on processing can not be ignored, and must be addressed.
I recently re-found this information while going through my PETA info people send me. All of this info is available if you want to go looking for it, but this was put up by web site I recommend.www.petakillsanimals.com I am posting this for your information. If they get mad I’ll take it down.
1) According to government documents, PETA employees have killed more than 19,200 dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens since 1998. This behavior continues despite PETA’s moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by farmers, scientists, restaurant owners, circuses, hunters, fishermen, zookeepers, and countless other Americans. PETA puts to death over 90 percent of the animals it accepts from members of the public who expect the group to make a reasonable attempt to find them adoptive homes. PETA holds absolutely no open-adoption shelter hours at its Norfolk, VA headquarters, choosing instead to spend part of its $32 million annual income on a contract with a crematory service to periodically empty hundreds of animal bodies from its large walk-in freezer.
2) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means the complete abolition of meat, milk, cheese, eggs, honey, zoos, aquariums, circuses, wool, leather, and fur, silk, hunting, fishing, and pet ownership. In a 2003 profile of Newkirk in The New Yorker, author Michael Specter wrote that Newkirk has had at least one seeing-eye dog taken away from its blind owner. PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals, including research aimed at curing AIDS and cancer.
3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to Rodney Coronado, an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) serial arsonist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing memorandum, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich has also told an animal rights convention that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation,” adding, “Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.”
4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, even waiting outside their schools to intercept them without notifying their parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “ Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 1.2 million minor children, including 30,000 kids between the ages of 6 and 12, all contacted by e-mail without parental supervision. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”
5) PETA’s president has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.” And PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, solely because they support animal-based research aimed at curing life-threatening diseases and birth defects. And PETA helped to start and manage a quasi-medical front group, the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, to attack medical research head-on.
6) PETA has compared Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust to farm animals and Jesus Christ to pigs. PETA’s religious campaigns include a website that claims—despite ample evidence to the contrary—that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.” PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn’t be allowed. And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compared the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide to farm animals.
7) PETA frequently looks the other way when its celebrity spokespersons don’t practice what it preaches. As gossip bloggers and Hollywood journalists have noted, Pamela Anderson’s Dodge Viper (auctioned to benefit PETA) had a “luxurious leather interior”; Jenna Jameson was photographed fishing, slurping oysters, and wearing a leather jacket just weeks after launching an anti-leather campaign for PETA; Morrissey got an official “okay” from PETA after eating at a steakhouse; Dita von Teese has written about her love of furs and foie gras; Steve-O built a career out of abusing small animals on film; the officially “anti-fur” Eva Mendes often wears fur anyway; and Charlize Theron’s celebrated October 2007 Vogue cover shoot featured several suede garments. In 2008, “Baby Phat” designer Kimora Lee Simmons became a PETA spokes model despite working with fur and leather, after making a $20,000 donation to the animal rights group.
I hate to admit the people we vote for are this stupid.
By T.L. Bush
Late this afternoon I heard some more very disturbing news about the horse business in Iowa. I have it from credible people that deal with both facilities, that two more public, monthly horse sales will close their doors and go out of business. Due to the closing of the last three kill plants in this country, thanks to the Government, the current price for horses is so low, the auctions can’t make enough commission to keep their people hired and they will be out of work. I am not at liberty to say which ones they are because I think it’s only fair for the owners to tell the help first.
The “Phony Pony Petters”, Bo, Willie and others that have absolutely no idea what they are talking about or care what they have done to the horses in America have condemned them to a fate far worse then death at a federally regulated, humanely directed processing facility.
The kill buyers will no longer have to compete for these unwanted, sometimes dangerous animals at auction, they will simply stop at farms where they see horses and tell the owners, “ I will give you a hundred dollars for your horse.” , and many of these horses will be sold.
The owners that usually sell through sale barns usually don’t have the money to keep a horse and at least the sale barns gave others a chance to buy a good horse at a fair price and take it home and care for it.
Now with the closing of so many sale barns these horses are at the mercy of those that only care about how much they can get per pound in Canada or Mexico.
Now with this practice there are no records, no health papers, no ownership papers, no Vet. Checks, no blood tests and nobody to have a chance to help them. Each horse, pony, mule or what ever will become what I call “A Dead Horse Walking.” They are dead and don’t even know it’s coming.
They will be taken to a holding area, someplace out of sight. They will be fed, maybe one time a day, and that’s with a group of others because they are usually fed on the ground or in bunks and have to fight the more aggressive horses for just one mouthful of food and that may be the only food they get that day. Sure there will probably be hay for them but it is usually poor quality and fed in a big bale on the ground with the aggressive ones running the others away.
I wish I could place blame for this cruel act on one political party but there are uncaring, uneducated idiots in both parties.
There is absolutely no way an educated, caring person could stand for the carnage that is about to happen. Our horses are doomed to abandonment, neglect and abuse by what would normally be very nice people but the Government has taken away their only avenue of offering these horses an opportunity for a good life in the hands of a caring person.
Now they will be sold to the on the farm kill buyer or turned out in on a back road. This is already happening across the country. I know Bo and Willie and the others say they can be humanely put down. But ask these idiots where the owners are going to get the money to do that?
Let me break it down for you. Around here, just to get a Vet. to come out is $45.00 and do nothing. To have the horse put down is another $125.00 to $165.00 depending on the size of the horse.
You now have a limited number of avenues for disposing of the body.
1. You can have a whole dug and bury it, but you better make sure you comply with all the state and county regulations because if anybody finds out then, up that dead horse comes and you start paying fines and in some cases could face jail time.
2. You can go the cremation route. Around here that starts at $600.00 and can go as high as $1,500 for the service plus the transporting fees to the facility, about $3.25 a loaded mile.
3. We have what we call the dead animal truck around here; I forget what the polite name for it is. Now days it costs a minimum of $325.00 to have a dead animal picked up, there again it depends on the size of the animal. You have to drag the dead carcass to the side of the road and it stays there until they get the time to pick it up, real respectful way to send off your old pal, at least in the eyes of Bo and Willie and the rest.
There is one other little problem with this method. I received a phone call from a friend of mine after the Dead Animal Truck picked up a horse of hers. She was quite distressed and asked if I could come over.
When I got there she met me at the road and she was still crying. As I walked toward her I could see the problem but I couldn’t understand what must have happened. There on the ground lay four horse feet. They had been severed half way up between the knee and fetlock. No wonder she was so upset.
We went to the house and I called the Dead Animal outfit and asked them what the hell was going on. Why would their driver cut the legs off with a chain saw and leave them there? The woman that took my call asked, “Are there shoes on the feet?” Yes the shoes were still there. “That’s the problem. Our rendering equipment can’t handle any steel or other metals and our drivers are instructed to remove the feet.”
I have since found out that is a common practice in the dead animal business anymore.
My question for the “Phony Pony Petters” is this. If these people can’t afford to feed these horses, where the hell are they going to get the money to get rid of them?
A friend of mine called me this afternoon and wanted to know if I wanted a horse. I asked the usual question, what sex, how’s it bred, what’s the age and how much. The answer was rattled off as usual, “Horse colt, Two Eyed Jack, long yearling and free.” To which I said,”No.”
Two years ago this colt would have brought $400.00 to $500.00 dollars at sale. Today you would be lucky to get$75 to $100 for it, thank you U.S. Government and the Pony Petters.
If you did take this colt to a sale and it sold for $100 this is what it would cost you to sell it, $35 consignment fee, $30 trucking fee, $10 blood work, $7.50 yardage and lunch, $82.50 plus lunch.
So what will probably happen to this colt is, the owner, not my friend, will take this colt out to the woods and either turn it loose or shoot it and leave it lay for the animals to eat, nice way for a good colt to end up, right Bo and Willie.
Now you wonder what this has to with my tax money. If the D.C. Idiots, some of which come from your state pass this H.R. 503 the way it is written. The U.S. Government will be back in the horse buying business. If they take away your avenue to compete in an honest business of buying or selling horses by their choosing they will be the only legal force to do business with and they will have to give us a fair market value for or horses. They are already planning to do it.
If this happens I will sell everything I’ve got, which isn’t much, and call on everyone that will listen, to bring legal action against the U. S. Government and every body that signs off on it’s passing.
I would rather see unwanted horses used to feed people, rich or poor than have them turned out to die of starvation or shot to rot in a ditch. There is people dieing everyday from starvation somewhere in the world. These “Phony Pony Petters” would rather children die and save the life of an unwanted horse and have it die in a holding area at a cost of over $7.50 per day, per head to the tax payers of America.
It's better to put them down, than lock em' up!
“Shoot Low They’re Ridin’ Shetlands”
by T.L. Bush.
Well here we are. Fall is here. The kids are back in school, the New Year is gearing up and I’m just as confused as ever about most everything. Just when I was beginning to think I had it all figured out, “BAM”, to quote the TV cook, here comes a new set of stuff across my desk.
Now the Hollywood Heroes apparently stirred up by a “Good Hearted Pony Petter”, have risen from the ashes like the great bird, to save all you horse owners from self destruction. I don’t know who started this crazy notion, but they never really thought it through.
Yes I’m talking about the anti-horse slaughter law they are trying to get passed again. When you hear or read the word slaughter you automatically conjure up an awful, grotesque vision of death and destruction, Bodies and limbs severed and laying in their own blood. This is the image they want you to see. They know that the image of traditional processing procedures wouldn’t create the gut wrenching effect of a gory movie scene. The killing of animals for food has gone on for as many years as there have been human types covering the earth.
This is not a new practice. One thing is for sure. The method of killing the animals has gotten better and more humane for the animal. They used to just bash their heads and start eating.
This is not a protest on the way an animal is destroyed, this is a hidden attempt to further their movement to stop the consumption, use and owning any animals at all. If you take the time to read the entire package, this law they tried to pass, has more holes in it then a block of Swiss cheese.
Now let’s see if we can’t get to the truth about a few things. Recently the House voted on a bill (H.R. 503) to ban the processing of horses for meat, a practice that lawmakers thought they already had ended. Instead of banning it outright, Congress pulled the salaries and expenses of federal inspectors. The Bush administration simply started charging plants money for inspections, and companies stayed in business.
The House vote was 263-146 to outlaw processing horses for human consumption.
American horse meat is sold mostly for people to eat in Europe, Asia and to U.S. zoos.
People who favored the ban displayed photographs of horses with bloodied and lacerated faces, the result, they claim, of being crammed into trailers that would carry the animals to processing plants. “It is one of the most inhumane, brutal, shady practices going on in the U.S. today,” said Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the ban. Sweeney argued that the processing of horses is different from the processing of cattle and chickens because horses are American symbols. “They’re as close to human as any animal you can get,” said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C. (Which really honked off a bunch of chimps.) Rep. Christopher Shays, R Conn. added: “The way a society treats its animals, particularly horses, speaks to the core values and morals of its citizens.”
The administration contended a ban would do more harm than good for horses. “We have serious concerns that the welfare of these horses would be negatively impacted by a ban on processing,” Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said in a letter recently released.
Defenders of horse processing said it offers a cheap and humane way to end a horse’s life when the animal no longer is useful. They say many owners cannot afford to care for an unproductive horse. “These unwanted horses are often sick, unfit or problem animals,” said Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn. “Many of them are already living in pain or discomfort, and tens of thousands more could be neglected, starved or abandoned if their owners no longer have processing available. “
Processing ended in the U.S., now plants in Canada and Mexico have taken over some of the business.
The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, GOP Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, said that for some horses, “these facilities provide a humane alternative to additional suffering or possible dangerous situations.”
Horse processing is a tiny business in the United States when compared with the beef, poultry and pork processing industries.
Horses were processed at three foreign-owned plants — two in Texas and one in Illinois. In all, about 88,000 horses, mules and other equines were processed last year, according to the Agriculture Department.
Supporters of the Bill included oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens, (of, I made a lot of money in oil and now I’m going to make a lot more in natural gas, fame), country singer Willie Nelson, (of I didn’t pay my taxes and the Government took everything, and I really like the way the Government runs things, fame) and actress Bo Derek,(of I made a lot of money taking my clothes off and running around naked,fame) who watched the debate from the House gallery. Opponents include former Dallas Cowboys tight end Jay Novacek, who owns a hunting ranch in Nebraska.
Supporters also include the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and the Humane Society of the United States.
Additional Opponents to the Bill include the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the biggest horse doctors’ group. (They should know!)
The Bill’s future is uncertain. While Congress passed this silly bill, the Senate did not pass it before the end of their session. It now has to be re-introduced as a new offering. Don’t worry, they already doing it this year.
GIVE ME A BREAK! I’m sure many of you have heard or read something about this. It has had several numbers associated with it. They include H.R. 857 in 2004, H.R. 503 in 2006 and then went to the Senate as S.R. 1915 and that’s where it died.)
Let’s cut through the crap. This bill as written won’t stop anything except a few jobs at some sale barns.
H.R. 503 prohibits the interstate shipping of horses and other equine to be utilized for human consumption.
As amended, H.R. 503 would have limited the provisions of the bill to a pilot program prohibiting business in New York and Kentucky. It would have still allowed processing in existing facilities. It would have exempted animals that were to be processed for charitable or humanitarian purposes and horses that are owned or controlled by State or local government or by an individual who buys a horse from a State or local government.
It would have required the Secretary of State to pay a set fee to an owner who incurs monetary loss because that owner could not sell their animal to a processing facility. The Secretary of State would have also been required to take possession of the unwanted animal.
NOW PAY ATTENTION! The “Warm and Fuzzy Crowd”, referred to as W. & F. C. didn’t tell you anything about those facts did they. They just want to make you think you will be saving all those hundreds of thousand of brutally tortured and maimed horses by their efforts and because they are who they are, you are supposed to follow their lead. Here are some numbers for you to think about. (This comes with a warning. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO EAT OR DRINK WHILE READING THIS SECTION. IT MIGHT CAUSE YOU TO CHOKE.)
In the United States there are an estimated 9,000,000, (that’s nine-million for those of you that have trouble reading big numbers) horses. As of September 21, 2006 there were only 68,575 horses going to U.S.D.A. inspected processing facilities. That is less than 1 % of the total horse population. More horses then that will die of natural causes, illness and injury in two months. These figures are based on the A.H.C. (American Horse Council) figures of a 10% death loss annually.
The “Warm and Fuzzy Crowd” doesn’t mention that in this pilot program alone, the U.S.D.A. estimates an annual expenditure of $40,000,000.00 (that’s FORTY MILLION a year. I just wanted you to see how big the number was.)
Take a deep seat, double grab and cantle-up, it gets worse. That figure doesn’t include taking care of the horses the States will take into their control nor does it address where they put them?
Let’s think this through. Somewhere along the way, some Good Hearted, (G.H.) group, let’s say maybe some outfit like the H.S.U.S., will set up an old age home for unwanted horses, (these places are not regulated) and the government will only be charged $10.00 a head per day to take care of them. Have we learned nothing from the save the mustang program? The W. & F.C. have come up with figures showing that the cost of these animals should be less than $300.00 each. That doesn’t sound bad.
But do the math. $40,000,000 by U.S.D.A. figures, divided by $300.00 each W.& F.C. figures, equals 133,333 horses times $10..00 per head per day from the G.H. group equals, (Drum Roll Please.) $1,333,333.00 (One Million Three hundred Thirty-threeThousand, Three hundred Thirty-three dollars A DAY.)
Well Buckaroos and Buckaretts that’s just the pilot program.
Do you know how hard it is to get a law changed? Let me tell you it’s damned hard. Nobody wants to admit they were stupid enough to vote for something as stupid as this.
In all my Fifty some years of being involved with horses and horse owners I have never sold a horse to a kill buyer that I know of. I have owned over 100 horses, one of which was ‘Dollor”, John Wayne’s movie horse and they have all been my friends. Some would try your skills, nerves and other things, but I respected each one in their own way. I have sold a few horses through auctions and I do not know for certain whom the new owner was.
I never sold a sick or injured horse through a sale barn. I had them put down as humanely as possible. Most true Horsemen and women care about their horses and their pets and would not tolerate the intentional slaughter of their friends. I appreciate the heart felt honesty many of the backers of this Bill have. They are not that much different then me and the thousands of others that own horses, (sometimes I think they actually own us).
But the truth is not all horses are pets, many of those that go for human consumption are unmanageable and some even vicious. If it ever came down to it, I would rather think my horse was being used for food and not as a bye product for glue or whatever.
We don’t need new laws for transporting horses. The Secretary of Agriculture has developed guidelines for the regulation of horses being transported in trailers. These regulations include requirements for food, water and rest that must be provided, and the prohibition of double-decked trailers for any reason not just too processing facilities.
We don’t need new rules and guidelines on humanely putting these horses down. The humane disposition of horses is stringently regulated by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Services, as authorized by the Federal Meat Inspection Act. All FSIS livestock personnel are trained in humane handling and are obligated to take immediate action if a humane handling violation is observed.
The truly humane thing to do would be to leave the Inspectors where they are. Let the facilities continue paying them and to not authorize additional plants to be opened in the U.S.A. If you keep these plants closed and remove the inspectors, we will have no way to insure the horses are properly and humanely put down.
Don’t let them fool you. This is not a good idea. It’s not really the money that bothers me. Hell, it looks like the state of Iowa almost got a two hundred million dollar green house, ($200,000,000.00) another dumb idea. It’s just that this is not in the real best interest of horses or horse owners.
So GET UP ON YOUR HIGH HORSE and watch the horizon for new efforts from the W. & F.C., GH and “Phony Pony Petters!” They won’t raise a lot of dust, but they will try again to take away your rights.
Well I gotta’ go unsaddle. I’ll see you on down the trail.
E-mail: tbg@uswranglers.com
Obama- Horses – Activists
President Barack Obama says he won’t just be a President for the American people, but the animals too.
He said he sponsored a bill to prevent horse slaughter in the Illinois state Senate and has been repeatedly endorsed by the Humane Society.
“I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other,” he said. “And it’s very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals.” Barack Obama. As reported by Associated Press
Humane Society Endorses Barack Obama Sept 22, 2008 ~ “While we’ve endorsed hundreds of congressional candidates for election, both Democrats and Republicans, we’ve never before endorsed a presidential candidate. We have members on the left, in the center, and on the right, and we knew it could be controversial to choose either party’s candidate for the top office in the nation. But in an era of sweeping presidential power, we must weigh in on this most important political race in the country. Standing on the sidelines is no longer an option for us.
I’m proud to announce today that the HSLF board of directors — which is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans — has voted unanimously to endorse Barack Obama for President. The Obama-Biden ticket is the better choice on animal protection, and we urge all voters who care about the humane treatment of animals, no matter what their party affiliation, to vote for them.” ~ Mike Markarian, President , Humane Society Legislative Fund
In his response to a questionnaire by the Humane Society Legislative Fund, Obama pledged support for almost every animal protection bill currently pending in Congress, and says he will collaborate with executive agencies like the USDA to make their policies more humane.
Obama and others in Congress think these folks are not so bad.
ALF, the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for an attempt to firebomb a UCLA researcher’s home; it placed the bomb at the wrong house. In June 2007, a group called the Animal Liberation Brigade took credit for placing a firebomb under another UCLA researcher’s car. Fortunately, the bombs in both cases failed to go off. Last October, the Animal Liberation Front said it was behind the flooding of a UCLA researcher’s home with a garden hose, causing up to $30,000 in damage. In February, an incendiary device charred the front door of that same researcher. Also in February, six masked activists demonstrating at a UC Santa Cruz researcher’s home pounded on her door and allegedly assaulted her husband when he confronted them.
These attacks are not the only ones: other attacks on research facilities have set back medical research and cost millions of dollars.
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wasn’t named in the suit and hasn’t been part of the UCLA protests, but when asked to comment, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk says she does not support fire bombings, but she supports protests at researchers homes and worries that the new limits abridge free-speech rights. “I think it’s a freedom-of-speech right to say [to researchers] ‘You better watch what you are doing’,”
Upon expressing agreement that ALF and ELF activists are “criminals” who must be stopped, for example, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.), in a written statement submitted to the record, expressed some important reservations and raised potential dangers with a witch hunt on animal and environmental activism. “In our quest to apprehend these criminals,” Obama said,
I hope we are not headed down the path of infringing on the ability of legitimate advocacy organizations to express their opinions and to raise funds in order to do so.
We also need to put these violent acts into context. The FBI has indicated a downward trend in the number of crimes committed by these groups—approximately 60 in 2004. While I want these crimes stopped, I do not want people to think that the threat from these organizations is equivalent to other crimes faced by Americans every day.
So, while I appreciate the Chairman’s interest in these fringe groups, I urge the Committee to focus its attention on larger environmental threats, such as the dangerously high blood lead levels in hundreds of thousands of children. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe the Committee’s time would be better spent learning why EPA has not promulgated regulations to deal with lead paint in remodeled homes.
Obama cogently questions the rationality of prioritizing an assault on activists who threaten some corporate interests and have never committed violent attacks against anyone.
Remember; Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid all voted to pass the last 503. Now they trying to bring it back if we don’t stop them!
They are still trying to reintroduce the anti- slaughter bill for horses and many want to adopt the Pickens’ offer for a free horse state. But you read this article I’ve put together and see if you think it’s a good deal for the horses, the tax payer or the Pickens folks.
The Wild Horses are Saved
I have managed to glean parts of this article from several places.
First thoughts are, this is great for the “Wild Horses” but, “THINK IT THROUGH!” Then see if you agree at the end of this article.
The unwanted horses seemed destined for death. The wheels had been set in motion to put down about 2,000 healthy mustangs(probably not the healthy ones), in a Tax Payer maintained herd of wild horses and burros that no one wanted to adopt.
The wild horses have become too expensive to maintain, and cattlemen know that turning them loose would be a drain on the already scarce grazing lands of the West.
Then recently, at a public hearing in Reno, Nev., to discuss the issue, a solution arrived, the Hangman fell off of his horse, so to speak.
Madeleine Pickens, wife of billionaire T. Boone Pickens, announced her intentions to adopt not just the doomed wild horses but all of the 30,000 horses and burros kept in commercial feed lots, (Let’s call it like it is.) Lifelong animal lovers, the Pickenses helped lead the fight to close the last horse slaughterhouse in the United States. This act has brought nothing but devistation to the everyday horse owners life. Without the compitition of the packer buyers, everyday horses are worth less than the saddles that go on their backs.
Madeleine Pickens is looking for land in the West that would be an appropriate home for the horses.
She is working with the BLM to adopt the horses while the agency persuades Congress to shift $20 million in funding to feed and protect the horses now in captivity for another year. As backup to Pickens’s offer, two other groups, both animal rescue organizations, have expressed similar interest in adoption. “We are very hopeful that euthanasia won’t be necessary this year,” said a BLM spokesman.
The news that Pickens and others intend to adopt the wild horses and burros was celebrated by animal rights groups, several of which were preparing legal challenges to prevent the government from putting the horses to death.
“Of course, I’m thrilled, obviously, that these horses are getting a reprieve,” said Shelley Sawhook, president of the American Horse Defense Fund. “At the same time, we need to address the basic issue of how these animals got in this position in the first place.”
Policymakers have to resolve the conflict between a law that permits euthanasia and a nation that is opposed to it. I suggest the majority of the “Nation’” of people referred to, knows little if anything about it. This is a situation where we have to have a conversation about what the law requires. “We’re hearing from members of Congress, (a handful I’m sure.), that they don’t think euthanasia is an appropriate solution, but the law says, ‘You shall.’ “If people don’t like what the law says, they need to address it. We hope we will find homes for all of these animals before the year is out and Congress will decide what it wants to do about the law.”, said the deputy director. . (Did I just hear the door open for another 503 attempt/)
Made famous by song and story, the wild horse has special protection under a 1971 law. The federal statute calls wild horses “living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West” that should be “protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death.” But the same law also requires the government to achieve “appropriate management levels” of roaming horses so they don’t overwhelm federal lands — and that’s the part that bothers bureau officials.
About 33,000 horses still roam wild on federal lands in 10 Western states. About half of those are in Nevada. The BLM believes the range can accommodate about 27,000 horses and each year Tax Payer-hired cowboys round up 7,000 to 13,000 horses and take them to feed lots in several states.
Right now, there are just over 30,000 horses in feed lots awaiting adoption, (Translated, waiting to die.) Those 10 years or older or those who have not been adopted after three tries can be sold without restriction under 2004 legislation.
Wild horses compete with cattle and wildlife for food and water. Horse advocates say federal officials have made faulty assumptions about the number of horses that can be accommodated on federal land, tilting those findings in favor of cattle interests.
“We’re livestock people. We know animals live and die. And we take that as a very normal part of life. We fully realize animal rights people hate that aspect of the livestock industry. We don’t particularly seek the euthanization. What we seek is the management of the population,” said Jeff Eisenberg, director of federal lands for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, an industry lobbying group.
The federal government has been rounding up wild horses since the 1980s, putting them in feed lots and offering them for adoption to horse lovers, who promise not to sell them for slaughter. But the roundups became aggressive under the Bush administration. As of June, BLM was holding 30,088 animals, more than triple the 9,807 held in 2001.
BLM will limit the roundups next year to about 5,000 horses.
Meanwhile, the pace of adoptions has been falling as the cost of feeding and caring for the wild horses has skyrocketed. The price tag to federal taxpayers for maintaining the horses tripled from $7 million in 2000 to $21 million in 2007. Hay prices for one short-term holding facility in Nevadarose from about $160 per ton in 2007 to almost $300 per ton in 2008, for example.
In a report released by, the Government Accountability Office called the situation a “crisis” and said the bureau needed to exercise its options, including euthanasia and the practice of selling the wild horses “without restriction,” meaning they could be sold for slaughter.
In the first analysis of BLM’s wild horse program in 18 years, the GAO found that the agency lacked a coherent nationwide management policy.
Animal rights groups say the government ought to sterilize horses and return them to the wild to live out their lives. In addition, they say, it should offer tax incentives to landowners who allow wild horses to live on private land.
Virginia L. Parant of the American Wild Horses Preservation Campaign, a coalition of about 45 groups, said the BLM does not use a scientifically sound method to estimate the size of horse herds or the number of horses that can be sustained on the range. That makes the roundups arbitrary, she said. I feel sorry for those that think college figures work on everything.
What’s more, about 19 million acres of land where wild horses once roamed have been removed from the program, reducing the amount of land available to the horses and increasing their concentration elsewhere.
People on all sides of the issue recognize some fundamental changes are needed.
“It’s intractable,” BLM’s Eisenberg said. “The animal rights people put the BLM in a box. We are seeking a balance in the land. Congress doesn’t want to put more funding into these feed lots, especially when times are tight. It’s a problem nobody likes.”
OK! Are you done thinking it through? Here’s the problem as I see it.
First: If T. Boone and wife want to adopt all the horses they should start now and pay the $20,000,000 for the coming year to feed the animals, not gouge the Tax Payer again. Now do the math. If they started gathering in 1980 and it’s now 2008, that’s 28 years, and if the cost started at $7,000,000 and it’s now $21,000,000 per year that would be an average of $14,000,000 per year. See where I’m going here. We have paid,$392,000,000, three hundred and ninety-two million dollars, to feed these animals. What could we have done for the people of this country for that much money?
Second: By the time they are ready to go through with the planned adoption, assuming they can get it done in one year; there will be 35,000 + animals. The type of land where these animals would be living requires an estimated 15 acres per animal unit per year to feed them. OK! Time for more math, let’s figure 35,000 animals times 15 acres = 525,000 acres of land. If they want to buy it there should be no problem, right. I mean why not? Ted Turner has bought up thousands of acres in the west. The problem is their plan will remove 525,000 acres from livestock production and increase costs for Ranchers and Farmers, which will translate into increased food costs for the American consumer.
When will we figure it out? The wild horse is an animal just like cattle, sheep, elk, deer or chickens. All of the stories and songs that have been written are about one individual horse from a herd. All the books, movies and songs praise one captured animal that is singled out and the others run loose. I have owned over a hundred horses and never sold one to kill. We true horse lovers don’t do that. Our horses are our friends and family.
I’m not saying get rid of all the wild horses, just eliminate the unnecessary ones. It’s a sad thing that people are so selfish that they want to let an animal die for no reason other than to get their way. There are people starving to death all over the world that these wild animals could feed. There would be no need for the Pickens family or anyone else to adopt or feed these animals. The Ranchers and Farmers could live in harmony with the wild horses if they were allowed to gather and sell, for a reasonable price, a certain percentage of the wild herds running on their land. These animals could then be humanely processed and delivered to third world countries to save the lives of their children and thousands of others.
Its amazing how a dumb old cowboy, setting here at a computer can figure this out and the brains we elect, can’t think past what’s good for them. By adopting this plan, we have eliminated any cost to the American Tax Payer, reduced the excess number of wild horses and allowed the others a chance to live out the rest of their lives at home on the range with the other wild animals. We would be feeding millions of people that would be glad to have anything to feed their children and maybe even make a few friends along the way.
Just remember the old adage, “If it looks to good to be true, it probably is.” While first impressions of what the Pickens family has offered looks good, what I call “Warm and Fuzzy”, turn the page and see what’s in it for them. Could it be that the money they are making on the money they have made is making more money (interest) they have to pay taxes on? Now that interest can become a deduction because it buys deductible items to maintain these horses? How many other people get a $20,000,000 deduction plus the deductions that go along with the purchase of the land?
Just my thoughts, I think I’ll go saddle-up take a ride.
E-mail: tbg@uswranglers.com
“An optimist goes to the window each morning and says,
‘Good morning God!’
The pessimist goes to the window and says,
‘Good God! Morning!’”
I have seen this very comparison applicable to some of the horse owners I have met. The optimist are the ones that seem to be reasonably happy with the associations, organizations and others involved in their world of Horses.
They know there is going to be a rock in their boot once and awhile. But they accept this, dump the rock out and continue having fun in their chosen activity. Referencing their account only when asked about it or it is appropriate.
The pessimist will take the same rock and turn it into a boulder with sharp edges embedded with glass that moves around causing pain, discomfort and even lameness.
They drag everyone they can, into a conversation about their discomfort and before long they have found others with bigger rocks than theirs. This usually results in the pessimist changing boots.
This sounds like it resolves the problem. But unfortunately the pessimist never dumps the rock out of the boot. Before long they put those boots back on and damned if they don’t start complaining to everybody again.
More people like to hear about a rock that was once there then an irritating rock that is still there. Nobody wants to smell your feet while you show them a rock.
I guess my take on it, is this. An optimist is a person that once had the pain of rocks in their mind but no longer have this thought in their head.
The pessimist can’t do this and they still have rocks in their head.
My suggestion: Everybody dump the rocks and go back to having fun with your horse.
Finding the correct stirrup length
Finding the correct stirrup length is very important in riding safely, having proper control over your horse, and keeping a good and balanced ride. When you’re sitting in your saddle, your ear, shoulder, hip, and heel should all be in alignment. If your stirrups are too long or too short, your heels will be out of alignment and be too far forward or back.
The length can also depend on your body shape, your horse’s barrel, the type of saddle you’re riding, what discipline you’re performing, and your own preference. Many riders like the extra security of a shorter stirrup.
With that in mind, pay attention to the way your leg hangs when you’re on the horse. Are you consistently getting pinched? Are you dropping your heel to get your knee in the right spot? If so your stirrups are too short. Are you pointing your toe to stay in the stirrup? Is your foot consistently falling out? You guessed it. Your stirrup is too long.
The following methods are what many people use to judge stirrup length. Try one or of them to determine yours.
TIP 1: Stirrup to ArmpitStand next to the fender of your saddle. Using your forearm, place your hand to the stirrup bar. The end of the stirrup should end at your armpit. This method might need some adjustment once you mount. |
TIP 2: Stirrup to Ankle
Have someone eyeball this one for you. Once you’re on your horse, put your leg straight down, out of the stirrup. The bottom of the stirrup should be even with your anklebone.
I hope this helps. Now go have a good ride!
TL
U.S. Wranglers
“KEEPIN’ AN EYE ON THOSE KEEPIN’ AN EYE ON HORSES.”
“The most beautiful, the most spirited and the most inspiring creature ever to print foot on the grasses of America!”
J. Frank Dobie