I'm having trouble following your your reasoning. First you said
[quote] And selling horses to slaughter - which has NEVER ceased to be an option for horse owners - only provides an incentive for further lottery-style breeding. Take away the cull option and the market will force people to breed responsibly [quote]
Today many of them are using it to disperse herds, since they didn't curtail their breeding as the market was drying up.
Which seems to say that breeders didn't respond to market pressure previously, but that they will now? Or they will if they plants in Canada and Mexico close as well?
I also found this statement confusing -
[quote] Breeders (who investigations have shown are the primary sources for slaughter horses) [quote] Do you mean horses sent *directly* from the breeder's farm to slaughter? Otherwise that statement doesn't have a lot of meaning, because the only two sources of horses would be breeders and feral horses. Whose investigation?
I agree that overbreeding is a big part of the current problem, and that racing and certain types of show breeding are the worse offenders, becuase it is acceptable to put 10 foals on the ground to get one winner, and everyone focuses on the winner, not the the 9 that will have to find other homes and careers.
But I don't agree with your hypothesis about the role the American slaughter facilities, or slaughter in general, plays in the equation of the current glut of horses at the bottom or the market or the market itself.