So, the processing of equine livestock for human consumption may resume. Or, to be more worthy of newsprint the "slaughter of horses may restart".
Opponents to this reinstatement of commerce have vowed to engage in "massive public outcry" in any town where a slaughterhouse may open. They even have a voice in Congress. U.S. Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., believes the process is inhumane and is lobbying his colleagues to permanently ban the practice.
I do not think activities practiced upon species other than homo sapiens can be characterized as either humane or inhumane. I do not endorse cruelty nor the imposition of needless pain in the processing of meat. However, in the absence of cannibalism, I don't think that processing possesses the necessary qualities to be subject to the reference of Rep. Moran.
The Humane Society of the United States said, "Local opposition will emerge and you'll have tremendous uproar over slaughtering Trigger and Mr. Ed.". Are they providing me with levity? "Trigger" and "Mr. Ed" are character names used to identify 2 well trained animals used in the entertainment industry. They are not 2 individuals participating in human society. They were 2 animals owned and trained to perform for the pleasure of people and the profit of people. They were NOT people. Anthropomorphism may allow for engaging discussion but it neither lends credence nor validity to such a discussion.
I do not eat Silver, Trigger, Bambi, Gentle Ben, Smoky Bear, Beauregard, Benji, Rin Tin Tin, Flicka, Morris, or Charlie. I eat meat. I also eat vegetables, grains, and fruits. I do not eat these things because I have some grudge against them while they are living. I eat them because they provide sustenance and I enjoy them as food. I am aware that many people enjoy a relationship with animals that is mutually gratifying. At least, that relationship is perceived as such by the human. I do not resent nor begrudge them this relationship. However, neither do I recognize an obligation for all people to engage in this behavior.
I am unable to understand the particularly vitriolic response this issue seems to provoke. Unless there exists a viable market for this resource then butchering Flicka is a moot point. If such a market does exist then I would assume this would provide an incentive to mange the resource in such a way that it remains a viable source of income. The absence of the ban on inspectors of horse slaughterhouses will not result in some gratuitous slaughter of all the horses in the U.S. simply because the ban no longer exists. Neither did the ban on inspectors prevent the processing of horses for human consumption. The animals were still processed but this took place in Canada and Mexico. Having been transported from the U.S.
Then there is the plea to maintain the aesthetic of the wild horse in the west. It is a regal, beautiful symbol of the sacrifice and courage that made the expansion of the United States a dream come true. Hardly, prior to European colonization there were no horses in the Americas. They are actually an invasive species which competes with the native species for resources. What won the west was the decimation of the bison. This deprived the indigenous people of food, clothing, and shelter. That, and the policy of the U.S. to relocate or exterminate the native American.
Pets are quaint, but they are actually a relative new social phenomenon. Ah, what about cats in ancient Egypt, you say. They were not pets, but were considered to be deities and occupied a place of worship, not companionship nor entertainment. Animals have a place in human culture. I actually identify 2 places. They either work or provide food, maybe both.
I am more concerned with my fellow humans than a pretty animal. Have I imprisoned the innocent? Have I fed the hungry? Have I visited the sick? Have I provided a little something for the poor? Once I have all these under control then I may find the time to be disturbed about whether or not Jacque had a roasted haunch of Mr. Ed for lunch.
What do YOU think?
No comments:
Post a Comment