I’m writing in response to Theresa Nolet’s letter to the editor in the Nov. 25 edition.
She states that we use slaughter as an outlet to get rid of horses that do not measure up and cannot be sold.
This is a far stretch from reality at best. Much of the reason animals cannot be sold is because of the destruction of the horse market.
When the United States banned slaughter, it destroyed the horse market. Horses were being sold before, but now the amount of unwanted horses has ballooned.
To think that banning slaughter in Canada would create a good environment for the horse is foolhardy at best. It will destroy the market that you consider to be cruel.
The letter states that killing horses is inhumane. I agree there are awful examples of animal cruelty. But why would you not want to fix the problem instead of adding to the problem like the Americans have?
The people behind the banning of horse slaughter in Canada refer to horses as 1,300 pound dogs instead of agricultural animals. This is where the true issue is. A horse is not a pet, it is livestock.
Somewhere in history the horse has been put in a higher class than cattle, sheep, hogs, etc., when in reality they are not.
If you want to treat a horse as a pet, fine, but don’t villainize the people who are a part of the horse industry.
What is next? Banning the use of cattle for meat or perhaps banning the breeding of all horses?
How could that possibly be enforced? And who gets the right to breed horses?
This is where the battle lines are drawn. Horse and cattle ranchers realize that livestock have a shelf life. Animals grow old and get sick; complications arise.
For animal rights groups to tie our hands on how we deal with these animals is completely absurd.
Jon Gustafson,Deloraine, Man.