Originally Posted by MacabreMikolaj View Post
ponyboy - your post is bordering on emotional. You essentially did nothing but ramble on about how others were wrong without actually providing any true opinions to my questions. You are still acting like BYB occurs because are profiting -
I don't know where you're reading that. I didn't say that BYB make money. When people have a business that's failing financially they often put their own personal money into it, correct? Chances are that's what these BYB types have always done. But they can only do that to the point where they can't afford to see to their own needs anymore, a point which is more likely to come now that there is no slaughter.
I also wasn't trying to make anti-slaughter arguments in that post. I was pointing out that so far the pro-slaughter arguments I'd heard weren't very sound.
But while we're on the subject... What I'm saying is that considering the lifespan of a horse, the slaughter ban has not been around long enough to have an effect on supply and demand yet. Not to mention that the US economy has been in the toilet, a factor which no one seems to be considering. How do you know the large number of unwanted horses right now isn't caused by the economy? I live in a capital city. We're shielded from the worst effects of the recession, and I can tell you without a doubt that horse prices haven't decreased in the slightest around here.
Everyone assumes that over breeding is inevitable, but no one knows for certain because this is the first time a slaughter ban has ever been attempted. Let's give it a fair chance to work, shall we? Consider it an experiment. If there are still the same number of unwanted horses in another 10 years I'll change my tune.
And if the supply of unwanted horses does go down, the entire industry will be better off. Then we'll be able to start slaughter back up again but do it right this time (i.e. the way Britain does it) because of the lower demand. That to me would be the best outcome.