>>>>>You're assuming a horse has only two choices- slaughter or being starved to death. Over here in the states we have euthanasia too. A responsible person doesn't starve their horse to death. And I would like to think a horse lover wouldn't consider slaughter a viable alternative either. It just seems like such a betrayal to an animal that has give it's live to serving people.
You are using the word "slaughter" as a blanket term for a betraying and disrespectful way for a horse to meet its end.
If a horse is killed expertly, carefully and humanely via bullet it IS considered humane euthanasia (I have done it, and woud choose it every time over injection if the circumstances allowed).
After a horse is dead, I don't think that using their remains productively is any type of "betrayal".
Now don't misunderstand me-- Most prior/current slaughter facilities and practices were/are not ideal for horses, and I in no way agree that a horse should be terrified and injured during its last few minutes of life.
In my perfect world, if I could draft laws about end-of-life choices for horses, I would build humane euthanasia/slaughter facilities in every state, and they would be limited to owners or authorized owner/agents to bring horses in (no mass loads, no dealers, quantities limited and titles/ownership/vet records inspected).
The remains would be used for whatever was appropriate-- if vet records warranted that the remains were suitable for human or animal use, great-- if not, they would be processed by traditional rendering or if necessary incineration.
I am not sure that the owner would receive any payment-- but they also would not have to pay for euthanasia unless the remains were totally unusable for any productive purpose.
Ideally, any human or animal use of the horses' remains would be channelled toward shelters, low income, and needy people and animals. The facilities could even serve as places of employment for those needing public food assistance (in otherwords, work for your welfare/food.)