Animal Rights

Predictably, Wild Horses Are Still Suffering Due to Federal Slaughter Ban

Turns out that basing animal rights policy on the strong feelings of animal rights activists is not working out so well for the animals themselves.


A federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) program designed to send wild horses to happy forever homes is instead sending those horses to buyers who fail to care for them adequately and often resell them for a profit at slaughter auctions, The New York Times reported this week. 

"The Bureau of Land Management, which is in charge of caring for the nation's wild horses, created the $1,000-a-head Adoption Incentive Program in 2019 because it wanted to move a huge surplus of mustangs and burros out of government corrals and find them 'good homes," the Times reported. "But records show that instead of going to good homes, truckloads of horses were dumped at slaughter auctions as soon as their adopters got the federal money."

Critics claim BLM is aware that the horses it sells often end up at slaughterhouses. The reasons why are quite simple. "It's economics," one rancher told the Times. "I can make about $800 putting a calf on my land for a year. With the horses, I made $1,000, then turned around and sold them for $500."

As the Times details, after wild horse numbers plummeted decades ago, Congress moved to protect them in the 1970s. Their numbers rebounded so profoundly that there are now far too many wild horses. The result? BLM is now holding tens of thousands of unwanted, captured wild horses, which eat up most of the program's $60 million budget.

While BLM leaders want to cull their numbers, the Times reports, "they have always been blocked by lawmakers mindful that a vast majority of voters do not want symbols of their heritage turned into cuts of meat."

Indeed, horse lovers who oppose slaughter claim chiefly that most Americans don't want horses to be slaughtered and that horses have significant cultural and historical value. It's an argument based almost entirely on emotion.

But prohibiting horse slaughter has terrible unintended consequences for the welfare of these animals. We know this because the USDA has, for more than a decade, banned horse slaughter in this country.

As I noted in 2011, U.S. horses intended for slaughter are now traveling significantly greater distances to reach their final destination, where they are not covered by U.S. humane slaughter regulations. In 2013, I applauded the USDA for lifting its seven-year moratorium on horse slaughter in this country. In that column, I cited research that had correctly predicted the slaughter ban would result in "a large number of abandoned or unwanted horses" and "a rise in investigations for horse neglect." I also noted that respected animal welfare experts, such as Temple Grandin, and famed chefs, such as Andrew Zimmern, supported lifting the slaughter ban.

But, as I predicted in 2014, the ban stuck, thanks to pressure from animal-rights groups. Predictably, too, the animal welfare problems the ban causes only worsened.

The ban is as unethical as it is nonsensical. If laws forced Americans to continue to raise cattle until the cows died of natural causes, we'd be overrun by starving cattle.

The U.S. is an outlier when it comes to horse meat. People around the world eat horses. Grocers in the United Kingdom and Canada and elsewhere and restaurants in dozens of other countries sell it. While most Americans don't eat horses, that's true in large part because real horse meat can be difficult or impossible to track down here.

In a 2007 piece, Time writer Joel Stein noted opposition to eating horse meat, then brushed it off. "I decided not to let a bunch of horse freaks…prevent me from eating meat enjoyed in Japan, Belgium, France, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria," Stein wrote. Then he tucked into some Canadian horse meat. "It turned out to be pretty awesome—a sweet, rich, superlean, oddly soft meat, closer to beef than venison.

If eating horses is good for the taste buds, it may also be the best thing for the welfare of these animals. "An overabundance of wild horses in the American west is driving us to the brink of an environmental disaster—and the most sensible solution may be adding them to the menu," Caty Enders wrote in a 2015 piece in The Guardian.

But don't hold your breath. Despite the tragic animal welfare consequences of the federal horse-slaughter ban, Congress is considering a move to make the slaughter ban—which must be renewed every year—permanent. Food Safety News reports the permanent ban, which has yet to be introduced in the current Congress, would likely ban domestic and foreign sales of horses for human consumption. The export ban alone would add tens of thousands of superfluous horses to the glut of unwanted horses already in the United States.

The USDA, for its part, has noted horse slaughter is "understandably a sensitive and emotional one for everyone who loves these majestic animals."

I'd rather a horse be slaughtered humanely in a domestic facility and turned into food than be left to starve or be trucked hundreds or thousands of miles to be slaughtered abroad. Anyone who truly loves horses should agree.

NEXT: Wanted: A Better Way To Think About Health Care

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Horse meat could be part of every school lunch menu.

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are SDS much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

        1. Do you shave your pubes before your webcam show?

    1. Make Mystery Meat More Mysterious Again. 🙂

      1. My real time work with face book I am making over $2000 a month operating low maint­enance. I continued h­earing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it.asd All topics considered, it become all legitimate and has without a doubt changed my life.

        For more statistics visit below site here… Home Profit System

    2. Horse meat, and shitty square pizza on Fridays.

    3. Large cuts of prime rump can already be found in many School Board and Principals’ chairs

    4. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months.I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.Just visit this

      website . ☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ Visit Here

    5. You mean there was a time when it wasn’t?

  2. Don’t let the horse-lovers find out what we do with those cute little bunny rabbits.

    1. PETA


      1. I have a t-shirt that says that.

        1. And to a person, everyone who says that acts like they have the copyright for it.

    2. Bounny appetito- Chef Boyardi, he makea one spicey Horsenpfeffer ravioli !

      1. “Buonny Appetito?” Is that what they say at a Scots-Itanian restaurant? Perhaps when they serve the Haggis Parmesean?

        1. Correction: “Scots-Italian.” Scots-Itanian” sounds like there’s some Iranian in there too. Pistashio Spumoni, anyone?

  3. Horses in the Americas are an invasive species, brought here by Europeans from the 16th century on. They are not native, and the “wild” horses are feral, the descendants of domesticated horses that escaped or were turned loose.

    1. You’re right about the feral bit, Jerry. But horses evolved in the Americas, and until the Native Americans wiped them out, numbered in the hundreds of millions from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.

      The Grévy’s zebra for instance is a morphological analogue to the North American Hagerman Horse, and the Przewalski’s horse is almost genetically identical to extinct equus ferus. Interestingly ancient American and Eurasian horses were genetically a single cline from France across the Bering to Mexico.

      I’m a big fan of the idea of Pliestocene rewilding, but I agree with you that domestication has altered horse behavior. I’d like to see Przewalski’s fill the native horse role instead, as they’re behaviorally “wild”.

      1. Hey ML yesterday you said “But you haven’t been just criticizing Netanyahu. You’ve been bitching about Jews as a race. You’ve been calling this their comeuppance.”
        I replied that I never said such things and you never responded.

        Please cite where I have said either of those things?

        1. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have me confused with someone else. If you admit you made a mistake and don’t call me an antisemite without evidence.

          I’ve confused Nardz and Sevo before(now I have it written down. Sevo is the senile old rummy Trump fellating fascist. Nardz is the black Trump fellating fascist.)

          1. What the fuck?!

            A cheap troll of a sockpuppet like you, whose main purpose was the abhorent religious harrassment of ChuckP and Idaho Bob, is now whining about being slurred?

            What you’ve been doing to those guys is fucking sickening, and yet here you are pretending to be in high dudgeon because your jew-hating got called out.

            Go fuck yourself.

            1. So you can’t cite where I’ve said the things you’ve claimed?

              So you’re a liar? You’re no better than what you claim I am.

              Chuck and Bob CHOOSE to go to an evil, bigoted church.

              I’m willing to accept you confused me with someone else.

              I have never “bitched about Jews as a race” or claimed “this is their comeuppance.”

              Criticizing Netanyahu or Israel policy is not antisemitic. Please cite where I’ve said antisemitic things or don’t call me an antisemite.

              Otherwise you’re just a lying troll…

              1. “I have never “bitched about Jews as a race” or claimed “this is their comeuppance.”

                That’s all you’ve done for the past week, you dishonest psychopath. You only started mentioning Netanyahu when people started calling you out on it.

                I’m no Mormon and I find their beliefs a little odd, but the Mormons I do know are generally good-hearted, kind people who don’t deserve harrassment from a psychotic, race-baiting, bigot troll like you.

                Go fuck yourself, you shitposting troll.

                1. Can you cite where I have? I have been criticizing Netanyahu and Israel before this conflict this past week started.

                  Israel is not the same as “Jewish people.”

                  If that’s all I’ve done you should have no problem citing me doing it or at least pointing me to an article where I have.

                  1. I’m not going to go through all the dreck and hate you vomited up in the last two weeks to prove you’re a hate-filled antisemite.
                    This is the exact same time-wasting horseshit stunt White Knight used to pull.

                    Everyone here has read you. Everyone knows that you’re a hate-filled maniac and a cheap troll. Even the lefties here are embarrassed by your antics. Who the fuck do you think your fooling?

                    I’m not playing along. Fuck you.

                    I’m positive at least everyone here, and I mean everyone, will back me when I say you’re an antisemite and a fascist.

                    1. I admit I’m bigoted towards Mormons, but that’s not the issue here.

                      If “all I’ve done” is “bitched about Jews as a race” or claimed “this is their comeuppance,” then you should have no trouble citing me saying those things.

                      The reason I’m protesting so much is because I would never say something like that.

                      Please prove me wrong or just admit you’re a disingenuous lying troll?


                    2. Don’t people on the right criticize the left for “making everything about race” or claiming “everyone’s racist?”

                      How is you claiming I’m antisemite without evidence any different?

                      If that’s all I’ve done the past week you should have no problem proving it.

                      If you can cite me “bitching about Jews as a race” or “this their commupance” I’ll quit posting here.

                      If I made a new account you’d know it’s me since I mostly criticize Mormons.

                      Wouldn’t you love to be rid of me if I’m such an antisemitic troll?

                      Please prove me wrong and I’ll quit posting!

                    3. Are you sure you don’t have me confused with someone else?

                      If that’s the case you aren’t a disingenuous lying troll?

                    4. If nobody likes me(That I believe) and everybody knows I’m an antisemite then someone should be able to cite me saying those things?

            2. I’m not a sock. I know many of you make that claim so you can attribute things to people who never said them or just dismiss people.

              When I’ve used other names(briefly) I always pointed out it was me. I’ve never tried to pretend I was another poster.

              I can’t control what others do. maybe they sock, but I don’t.

              1. You are sock faggot. Shut the fuck up.

                1. Thanks! It really boosts my day when I piss off you far right bigots. Means I’m doing something right.

            3. Judicious use of Mute is a gamechanger

              1. It really is. Putting KARen on the mute list is highly advisable.

                1. Muting the Squirrel cleaned things up immeasurably. Damn that was a good day.

            4. You lying sack of shit. You’ve pulled the same shit with me before. Accusing people of anti-semitism is your shtick you fucking dingleberry muncher.

              1. This isn’t the first time I’ve caught him in a lie.

              2. No, he is very much anti semetic. Why are you rushing to a known trolls defense? He switched, like all anti Semitic do, to saying he only hates Netanyahu after getting called out.

                Did you even read the prior threads or did you just see a fellow anti Semitic person in trouble?

                1. You should have no trouble citing where I was anti semitic then Jesse?

                2. No I didn’t read any prior threads. What I do know is that ML is a proven liar when it comes to accusations of anti-semitism and no benefit of any doubt should ever accrue to anything he says on anything related to that.

                  Guess it’s not a surprise that a known liar like you jumps to the defense of a known liar like ML. You recognize the troll and same fucking tactics too. Lie and then refuse to provide evidence for your lie. Do they teach you both that in the Klan College of Trolling?

                  1. I muted ML a while ago. He adds nothing of value. Every thing he writes, it is either some form of whataboutism or some personal insult. He has already said that he will oppose whatever I say, no matter what. He is a tribalist moron. The board is better off with him muted.

                    1. You muted him because he calls out your sophistry. You, sarcasmic, and the other weak willed, softly thought through lefties are the same. You wilt when your hypocrisy and ignorance is exposed.

                  2. And Jesse is basically Nardz, but less honest. At least Nardz is demonstrably paranoid and willing to publicly state that he would commit murder in the name of his right-wing heroes. Jesse would do the same but won’t admit it.

                    1. Awwww fatty is hangry.

                      You talking about honesty is the fucking height of hilarity. You constantly deny you say things even when I post the links.

                  3. No I didn’t read any prior threads

                    Should have stopped there instead of rushing to an anti Semitic defense.

                    1. Hey Jesse: if any of you liars can cite where i “bitched about Jews as a race” or claimed “this is their comeuppance.”
                      I’ll stop posting on reason!

                      Go ahead and get rid of me if you can prove I posted those things!

                      I’m sure Chuck and all the Mormon lovers would appreciate it!

        2. Wtf?!?! Lol

          1. Wtf indeed Gumby.

            Is ML a liar?
            Or is he just senile like Sevo?

            1. I’m not sure to what you refer, KissAllRomneys

              1. Don’t most the people on here hate Mitt?

                1. Shut the fuck up leftie shithead cock sucker.

                2. I think one in here secretly lusts for him. Thou doth protest too much.

                  1. Good one!

      2. Not being hugely knowledgeable horses myself, is there a large difference between the way feral domesticated horses act in the wild, and never-domesticated horse species behave in the wild?

        1. Altered breeding season, and some domesticates can’t handle some plants that truly wild horses can, leading them to overbrowse on others.
          This of course varies in horse breeds, with “primitive” breeds showing more natural behavior.
          I think that the Yakutian horse would be a plausible stand-in for the Yukon Wild Horse, for example.

          I think all in all there’s a net benefit to feral horses like mustangs on native habitat, but a truly wild horse like the Przewalski’s would require no management.

      3. There were no horses in the Americas when the Spanish got here. Any horses now in the Americas are descendants of the horses that were brought here in or after the 16th century.

      4. That’s fine – *today* horses are an invasive species

    2. So were the Mongolians who invaded the land of Wooly Mammoths and Sabertooth Tigers. Get over it – “Jerr”.

  4. So just like forest management in California?

    1. Pretty much. It’s almost enough to suggest that ‘feelz’ aren’t the best policy basis.

      1. The unique thing here is this is not Karen worrying about her kid walking a block to school by himself feelz.

        This is feelz rooted in Westerns and not seeing any mounted horse heads on the walls at Cabela’s. Maybe the latter type of feelz is more open to reasoned arguments.

        1. Caw caw!

        2. Are you even able to tell If these horses belong to Wild Horses Matter without some sort of certified ID?

          1. They aren’t feral unless it’s notarized.

            1. So you need papers instead of just hearing it from the horse’s mouth?

  5. I was served horse meat in Japan once. I did not know it at the time but my compatriot a few days later informed me of what I was served. No complaints, probably one of the better meals I had in Japan.

  6. Horses are tasty.

  7. We can eat bugs (in fact, USDA actually permits a certain percentage of bug parts to be in our food) but can’t eat tasty horse meat? Why is it o.k. to eat Porky, and Daffy, and Henny Penny, and Elsie but not Trigger?

    1. Or tigger

      1. But “He’s the only one! G-r-r-r-owl!”

    2. Why is the BLM rounding up wild horses?

      1. Because Black Stallions Matter

        1. Jeffs favorite tag on pornhub.

        2. They’re protecting the ranchers’ cheap grazing. It’s cronyism.

          Americans support agencies like the BLM because they imagine them as being conservators of the land, but they’re really cronies of the ranchers, who don’t want all that cheap grazing on BLM land going to wild horses.

          The big question isn’t what to do with them once they’ve been rounded up. The question is why they’re being rounded up in the first place. Ranchers who had their land taken by the government under the pretense that they’d be allowed to use it for grazing have a legitimate complaint, but no one should imagine that the government is worried about protecting wild horses from ranching.

          And the question is, if the government isn’t protecting high profile species like mustangs, sea otters, and the last of the wild Bison at Yellowstone, then what about all the low profile but important conservation work that needs to be done? What are the chances the care about that if they can’t even be trusted with the high profile stuff?

  8. My primary take from this is that the American public needs to come to terms with the fact that using the government for conservation purposes is stupid in a pluralistic democracy. In our imagination, when the BLM, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, etc. protects something, they’re doing it solely for the purposes of conservation, but in a pluralistic democracy, everyone’s interests are represented–including those who want to exploit, rather than conserve, our natural resources.

    The BLM isn’t just there to protect mustangs from ranchers. They’re there to protect ranchers from conservationists. For goodness’ sake, follow the money. Mustangs don’t pay grazing fees, and mustangs don’t pay permit fees for oil drilling. What Mustangs graze on is feed that cattle can’t graze on. It’s the same thing with wild buffalo that leave Yellowstone and end up on public land that ranchers pay fees on for grazing their cattle. The Fish and Wildlife service killed almost half the endangered sea otters in California, moving them so they wouldn’t interfere with the commercial sea urchin industry.

    Pluralistic democracy allows people with contradictory goals to be represented in the decision making and execution, both those who want nothing done with the resource in question and those who want to exploit it, so the government agencies of a pluralistic democracy simply won’t work for the purposes of conservation over the long run. There is a different solution where the only people making the decisions about how land is used are conservationists, and that solution doesn’t require an authoritarian government that ignores the interests and concerns of ranchers, fisherman, and tourists. That solution is called “private property”.

    Being free to make choices about how or whether something is used is what it means to “own” something, and if that land were owned by conservationists, they wouldn’t need to compromise with ranchers, tourists, the seafood industry, or anyone else. That is a vastly different solution than, say, declaring something a national park and putting the government in charge.

    They cull bison in Yellowstone every year to protect the interests of local ranchers, and inviting millions of people from all over the world to come see a national park like that is the opposite of protecting it. There’s no better way to destroy land forever than to make it national park. Yosemite is being destroyed by tourists, but there’s such a big vacation industry around the parks, conservation is not the primary concern–or they’d have shut off automobile traffic like they did in Zion long ago.

    If you’re primarily interested in conservation, taking land out of the hands of private owners and giving it to the government to administer is the cause of the problem. The foxes, the wolves, the mountain lions, the ranchers, the seafood industry, and Walmart’s camping gear section are guarding the hen house. The solution is to take land away from the government and move it into private hands. Over time, that land will go to its highest and best use. If ranchers are willing to buy the land on the open market, they should be allowed to do so. If recreational uses or conservationists are willing to pay more for the land than ranching can support financially, then ranchers should take the opportunity to lean a different life.

    But my fellow Americans need to get their heads around the fact that government administration of land does not protect it. Conservation is just one interest among many, and even if conservation is in vogue today–at the expense of tourism, drilling, ranching, etc., that doesn’t mean it will be tomorrow. Conservation is about keeping things the same way over generations, and that can only happen when the land is owned privately by conservationists.

    1. P.S. All the land that can’t be sold to ranchers, for lumber, to oil companies, for recreational purpose, etc., all that land should be handed over to private conservationists charities–as much as they’re willing to take. You always end up in one of these situations where people argue about how best to privatize things that have been nationalized, but it’s more important to privatize these things and get them out from under the thumb of government control. Because the resources will would end up in the hands of crones in Russia, for instance, was not a good reason to keep socialism going. Because there’s no way to privatize national assets in an equitable manner isn’t a good reason to remain socialist. It’s just a good reason never to nationalize assets in the first place.

      1. Ken, agree with you on the above! GOOD LUCK though on persuading many Americans of ANY of this! It is ONE tough row to hoe! Next? All of outer space will be declared “off limits” to those who believe in private property!

        Decolonizing Mars: Are We Thinking About Space Exploration All Wrong?

    2. Ken, I agree with your overall premise that most if not all public land should be privatized.

      Just note, of course, that your entire argument rests on the premise that public land is not actually owned by the public, but is instead owned by the government. I was told over and over again that public property is actually owned collectively by the people, particularly the US Capitol on Jan. 6. That citizens had every right to wander in there because it was “their building” and that the crime of trespassing is baloney in this context. I’m glad that we can agree that public land is not actually owned collectively but is owned by a corporate institution known as the government, separate and distinct from the people over which it rules.

      1. Lol. And you want to talk about others with dishonest arguments? God damn jeff. Lol.

  9. “Sir, if this meat were any fresher, the jockey would still be riding it!”

  10. While in Korea, had some horse meat burgers at a roadside stand. They used thoroughbreds. Talk about fast food!

    1. Not fast enough.

      1. Win-place-show-quarter poundet

      2. 2nd place is just the first loser.

  11. Federal lands for the most part should all be given to the states. Let the people who live in these places make the decision on how best to be stewards of their land.

  12. Same BLM that has police and snipers. Another armed government outfit of goons. They would bury you in a shallow grave but god forbid you hurt a desert tortoise.


    This graph, frankly, shows that Democrats are willfully blind to what’s going on in the county, probably mostly because they don’t want to be accused of having “conservative” views, which is a mode straight out of Maoism. [Link]

  14. “a vast majority of voters do not want symbols of their heritage turned into cuts of meat.”

    Perhaps. However, one suspects a vast majority of voters do not consider horses to be symbols of their heritage.

    1. For a large contingent of voters, 80 million in fact, a symbol of their heritage is a horse’s ass.

      1. You are, of course, referring to that contingent of voters who are primarily and simultaneously both non-religious, yet of the party symbolized by a Biblical Ass, are you not?

  15. Speaking of horses, I always thought this whole QAnon thing was a laughable bunch of crazy bullshit from people who think the R in the alphabet is placed next to the twisty S because of a secret UN handshake made by Roosevelt and Stalin at the Council of Trent back in 1943. Ya know, to control the world and all that Black helicopter crazy shit.

    But boy was I wrong… it’s true.

    Wyoming state senator running against Cheney for House seat reveals he impregnated 14-year-old when he was 18

    I can’t help wondering if she got an abortion. The sex must have not been hot because she killed herself after having Mr. Republican at the age of 20. Too bad for her. There are undoubtedly better fish in the sea

    Favorite part: He said this disclosure won’t stop him from running for office.
    “Bring it on,” he said in the Facebook Live video. “I’m going to stay in this race, we’re going to continue to raise money, because my record stands on its own.”

    You bet it does, you crazy fucking pedo. You should join in with Matt Gaetz and form the “Ironic-Proof-that-accusations-made-by-QAnon-are-true” caucus.

    1. If you read the full article her parents were pressuring her to abort and she wanted to keep the child. Her parents shunned her for keeping it.

      But good work on your ignorance dumbass.

    2. The sex must have not been hot because she killed herself after having Mr. Republican at the age of 20.

      You need professional help.

      In any case, if he somehow gets elected, it will be more a reflection on how much Republicans hate Liz Cheney than anything else.

      1. He is an American Socialist.

    3. That is just too far. This is a really tragic story. Yes this creep committed statutory rape and created a child with this teenager. But that is no reason to trash her.

      1. It may not have even been statutory rape at the time. I know that the age of consent was raised in many states over the last several decades, with all states now having it set to 16, 17, or 18 depending on the state. But 30 years ago it was definitely lower in a number of them. I know for certain that 30 years ago in New Mexico it was 13. Which seemed pretty reasonable to me when I was 14, but which I have to admit feels rather young, now.

        Still, the guy has grey hair, so this story is quite possibly from an era when the relationship in question wasn’t illegal. It’s possible that it’s *still* not illegal, since even in those states where they’ve raised the age of consent, that’s the age of consent with *any* partner, and many of them have ranged age of consent for relationships with people of similar ages. “14 if the partner is within 4 years of age” is almost certainly the law in at least one state, if not several.

        Ironically, the age of consent tends to be higher, with fewer exceptions like that, in more liberal states. In CA, for example, it’s just 18, period, meaning that any pair of highschool students who have sex (which I strongly suspect occurs at least occasionally) could notionally be charged with statutory rape of each other.

        1. Understanding your comment would require jeff to not be ignorant and do basic research past his initial thoughts.

        2. If there were still such a thing as gender, I would suggest we follow the science and make the age of consent for females at the onset of menses. Biology knows best.

          1. See, that’s something I actually do find odd about these laws. We’re notionally living in a world of sexual liberation, where it’s supposedly a liberal value to encourage the sexuality of younger and younger people, and a wider range of people as well. But back in the “bad old days” of sexual repression, your (I presume) tongue in cheek suggestion was actually far more likely to be the actual law of the land. I mean, as I said above, 30 years ago it was the case that the age of consent in NM was 13, and I seem to recall that it was 14 in a number of other states until the big push to raise it to at least 16 everywhere hit, and if I’m not mistaken, it’s *still* 14 in Germany and several other European and Asian countries.

            And it’s generally the same political side pushing for all of this. So we’re supposed to have Sex Ed in 4th grade, because kids are going to have sex and that’s just common wisdom, but then it’s also got to be illegal for them to have sex with anyone. Which just seems schizophrenic, to on one hand insist that we celebrate sexuality and the sexuality of younger and younger people, but then to also insist that there be legal repercussions for them actually engaging in it.

            (And certainly, I’m not saying that 4th graders should be having sex, or that it should be legal for them to have sex with adults, or any of the stupid things that someone will probably come along and accuse me of for even knowing anything about this subject. Just to make sure that’s stated clearly. I did my initial research on this subject back when I *was* that age, because that’s just the sort of young libertarian I was, and I’ve kept up to date because I have any number of nieces and nephews, whom I wish to be able to accurately counsel regarding any activity they might desire to engage in, so they can avoid permanent legal repercussions for such actions. Especially in this era of ubiquitous cell phones. “Don’t make child pornography of yourself, and don’t let anyone else send you child pornography of themselves or others” is something I’ve had to explain on multiple occasions, much to the mortification of the youth in question. Kinda makes me glad I grew up when I did, because I’m sure I’d have done some dumbass shit when I was a teen. I mean, *different* dumbass shit than what I did then.)

      2. Who’s trashing her?

    4. It’s not pedophilia for teens to be attracted to each other. That’s actually pretty normal.

    5. “13? I likes older women.” – Billy Roberts, Composer of “Hey Joe”. Of course, he was from Greenville, SC. and was doing it, tongue in cheek, in his best “Southern” tenor, just to tweak the San Francisco doyens in our neighborhood (Fillmore and Clay in Pacific Heights), as he’d then lower his voice an octave, look at them askance and say with a smile, “You do know Romeo and Juliet was written about 12 year olds, don’t you?” (Wm. Moses “Billy” Roberts, the singer/songwriter who penned “Hey Joe”, which was the second song he ever wrote and became Jimi Hendrix’s first and greatest hit.)

  16. Libertarians for eating ponies?
    Not going to win many friends that way.

    “But prohibiting horse slaughter has terrible unintended consequences for the welfare of these animals.”
    Getting slaughtered has its drawbacks as well.

    1. What I’m hearing from this article is that the government will give me $1000 *and* a freezer full of horse steaks. And I could make horsehide rawhide!

    2. Well, “CE”, I suppose consistent, “Pro-Choicer’s” [as if there were any], could push for a national “Happy Un-Birthday” for all the little “Unviable Tissue Masses” procedure’d out of existence every year.

  17. “While BLM leaders want to cull their numbers, the Times reports, “they have always been blocked by lawmakers mindful that a vast majority of voters do not want symbols of their heritage turned into cuts of meat.””

    I guess you could say that wild horses couldn’t force lawmakers to repeal the ban against culling.

    1. BLM should be put in charge of BLM. Both numbers need to be culled.

  18. If you want to have a good belly laugh, read this:

    It’s an unintentionally hilarious apologia for the far left lions who can’t come to grips with the end of the pandemic and don’t want to return to their normal lives. It’s a real window into the mindset of some of the most far gone brainwashed whackos in this country.

    1. “Either you believe that you have a responsibility to take action to protect a person you don’t know or you believe you have no responsibility to anybody who isn’t in your immediate family.”

      Simply define “responsibility”, “action”, and “protect”.

    2. “Hetherington found that the very liberal participants in his survey tended to be the most neurotic.”

      The Science Is Settled.


    Freaks trying to narrative this into existence so hard. It’s not organic. This is being pushed.

    Some people are preparing their plates as a swarm of cicadas emerge in the U.S.

    Despite many being afraid of their “ick factor,” @jessfanzo explains that chowing down on insects is a culinary staple across the world — and could be a key in protecting the environment. [Link]”

    1. Yes, Nardz, we know. A news story about how some people like to eat bugs is really part of a narrative campaign to apply social pressure to force you to eat bugs. We get it. They really are out to get you.

  20. O/T: Well well well, Rick Santorum has been canceled by CNN.

    “We birthed a nation from nothing. I mean, there was nothing here,” Santorum told students during remarks at a Young America’s Foundation event. “I mean, yes, we have Native Americans, but candidly, there isn’t much Native American culture in American culture.”

    Sure, there’s not much Native American culture in American culture, except for an entire film genre of Westerns (which itself launched its own sci-fi variant, such as Firefly), oh, and about every other highschool, along with pro teams, having a mascot along the lines of “Indian”, “Savage”, “Braves”, “Redskins”, etc. No no no, there’s no Native American influence in American culture at all. What a buffoon.

    1. That is idiotic. Has he ever picked up an American history book.

      1. Oh he’s read a history book. The history book he read, I’m sure, talked only about what white Europeans did. Maybe there was a paragraph or two about what Native Americans did, but that was extra reading and wasn’t going to be on the exam anyway so who cares.

        1. Now do Cuomo. Reid. Or any of your other idols in the media.

    2. I usually cancel santorum with Tide.

  21. O/T: Here’s a two-fer. Ron Johnson blaming the media while simultaneously whining about how victimized he is.

    Can we all just agree that the right-wing call to “blame the media” for all of their troubles, is really no different than the left-wing call to “blame the corporations” for all of theirs? It is just an attempt to shift blame and find a scapegoat for their own problems. In terms of Team Red, it’s because a number of their supporters did some unspeakable things on 1/6 and they would rather not talk about it, so they try to shift blame to someone else.

    1. Even if the majority of the big media companies lean liberal, we no longer live in an age where people have to get their information from big media companies. Also, it’s not like there aren’t big media companies that lean conservative.

      1. I know, right? There isn’t a single elected Republican whose electoral prospects depend on what the New York Times thinks about them. What actually happened, is that some Trump supporters on 1/6 crossed a line that was even too far for many of these elected Republicans so they support a commission to look into it, even despite knowing that they face an electoral backlash from their own voters for their support. That is how bad Jan. 6 was. But Ron Johnson would rather not talk about any of that and so he pretends that the New York Times is brainwashing Republicans in Congress to vote for this commission. LOL

        1. Just here to see how long it takes for one of you to claim an officer was killed. Im sure white Mike will claim 3 died.

        2. Oh, and…

          chemjeff radical individualist
          February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
          Flag Comment Mute User
          What is there to talk about?

          From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.

  22. Quoting Jayne in Firefly, “If wishes were horses, we’d all be eating steak.”

    1. To quote my dear, departed mother [04/’11-05/’89]: “If wishes were fishes we’d all go down to the sea and cast nets” – “Jerr”.

  23. O/T: A fascinating Ipsos poll.

    Two noteworthy takeaways:

    1. 53% of Republicans, as of May 2021, think Donald Trump is the “true President”. This is insane.

    2. 48% of Republicans either strongly, or somewhat, agree that the Jan. 6 attacks were by “mostly peaceful law abiding Americans”. *At the same time*, 54% of Republicans think that the Jan. 6 attacks were perpetrated by Antifa to make Trump look bad. How can this possibly be?

    1. Concern trolling is beneath even you fatty.

    2. There was like one sorta antifa guy at the riots, which is enough to hang an entire conspiracy off of.

    3. Are you an idiot or something?

      Want me to post the 2000 and 2004 polling too?

    4. And my favorite…

      Up to a third of democrats also belive the election was rigged.

      Not everyone blindly accepts media narratives.

    5. 59% of Democrats believe the police kill over 1000 unarmed black men per year. The true number is under 30.

      What’s your point?

  24. While most Americans don’t eat horses, that’s true in large part because real horse meat can be difficult or impossible to track down here.

    Americans don’t even eat lamb. Americans are just chicken when it comes to meat variety.

    1. Americans eat lamb, which is why you can find it in the grocery store. For the most part they don’t eat mutton, though. Gotta go to the Rez to find that.

      1. How much meat do Americans consume?

        Poultry – 48.8 kg/year
        Beef – 25.8 kg/year
        Pork – 23.6 kg/year
        Lamb – 0.4 kg/year

        Considering the vast majority of lamb consumption in the US is by immigrants from lamb habit countries, I’m safe in saying most Americans do not eat lamb.

        1. Unless your family is from a culture that eats lamb it’s probably a fair statement to say that most Americans aren’t keen on it. I ate a lot of lamb growing up and will still happily do so, but that really had to do with where my parents emigrated from. I know a lot of Americans who just don’t like it.

        2. Yes… and if you *had* said that *most* Americans don’t eat lamb, or that Americans don’t eat *much* lamb, I wouldn’t have replied to you.

          Pedantic, perhaps, but given that the article is about horses, which Americans really *don’t* eat, if for no other reason than it’s not available, the difference matters.

          1. I suppose. Supermarket access must be the only reason ‘dog’ hasn’t taken off either.

            1. Is this the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy reinacted at the cook-out? Please, not while we’re eating. 🙂

        3. Someone explained to me that lamb fell out of favor because of World War II. They had it that a huge portion of the canned rations were lamb, and canned lamb is terrible. SPAM was the preferred canned meat. When the GIs came home, the last thing they wanted was lamb, and lamb never recovered to how popular it was before the war. Because a World War II guy told me a story doesn’t make it true, but I’ve heard the same thing from more than one source. It could be an urban legend, but there might be kernel of truth in there somewhere, too. Sheep were traditionally considered the enemy of cattle ranchers, too.

          “Generally, the cattlemen saw the sheepherders as invaders, who destroyed the public grazing lands, which they had to share on a first-come, first-served basis. Between 1870 and 1920, approximately 120 engagements occurred in eight different states or territories. At least 54 men were killed and some 50,000 to over 100,000 sheep were slaughtered.”

          —-Sheep Wars

          Again, it’s about grazing rights. Legitimate government to ranchers is often about the government securing their right to graze for cheap on public land–and I guess it’s been like that since shortly after the Civil War at least. The government serves a function to them like, ancient river valley civilizations enforced water rights for irrigation and like governments have always done for mineral rights and their mining claims. When socialist anarchists talk about how private property doesn’t exist without the government, this is the kind of thing they’re talking about.

          Of course, the fuckers are wrong.

          1. The timing is right. Sheep numbers peaked in the US in 1884. And it is about land but not quite mere grazing. Maybe more about clearing frontier of smaller predators – maybe the other side of comparative advantage (that imported food ceases to be a staple after awhile). The recent decline – as recently as the 1960’s, Americans ate close to 10x more lamb than now – yeah that would be some generation of Americans that simply killed off the market.

            Sheep v cattle would probably make for an interesting history comparison re various recent frontier-clearing/settlement countries – US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Russia, New Zealand. In many sheep/goat areas – ‘frontier’ dates back to domestication of livestock and transition from hunter/gather to settled – so the history is long-forgotten

          2. Didn’t Monty Python’s Flying Circus do a skit on Flying Sheep? Is that where that came from?

  25. “As the Times details, after wild horse numbers plummeted decades ago, Congress moved to protect them in the 1970s.”

    So congress is saying Darwin as wrong?
    Are they actually promoting the Christian belief that man was given dominion over all the animals in Genesis?
    The entire EPA is a violation of the ‘separation of church and state’ letter.

    1. Very clever. That’s got the makings of a court case. That’s how the religious exemptions for SS/Medicare came into being. With legal cases filled by or on behalf of Amish.

      Rather than taking that objection seriously, government carved out a legal exemption that applies only to religions that were already in existence when the laws were written. Thus eliminating the possible religiosity of all new religions to that sort of community obligation. Basically exactly what the Roman Empire did re ‘old religions’ (who got exemptions) and ‘new religions’ (who got crucified).

      1. Well, why should only the Amish get all the fun of eating horsemeat and of not seeing F.I.C.A. and Medicare/Medicaid withholding on any paper checks they receive? Like Redd Foxx said, let’s have some fucky everybody here!

        Religious cut-outs and Auberon Herbert’s Law of Equal Liberty cannot exist together.

  26. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily A .. This is enough for me to happy my ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

  27. Didn’t this whole curfluffle start when Bernie Sanders wanted to give everybody a pony?

  28. Yes, I also agree, I would rather slaughter a horse humanely in a domestic facility and treat it as food, rather than starve to death or truck hundreds or thousands of miles to be slaughtered abroad

  29. But… but… horse meat is tref!!!

    Meh, I’m gentile. I’m up for some horsemeat. I mean, I’ve eaten Bambi so what’s a little Black Beauty?

  30. I realize I’m a bit late to the party, but I can’t believe I didn’t see a certain joke in the comments! Here goes:

    “The ban on horse slaughter is the glue that holds our society together!”

  31. We used to buy Hillsdale Frozen Horse Meat in the early ’50’s for our 95 lb. Belgian Shepard and she’d let me have a small piece of it after it was thawed. Tasty critters.

  32. The Grévy’s zebra for instance is a morphological analogue to the North American Hagerman Horse, and the Przewalski’s horse is almost genetically identical to extinct equus ferus. Interestingly ancient American and Eurasian horses were genetically a single cline from France across the Bering to Mexico. ,I’m a big fan of the idea of Pliestocene rewilding, but I agree with you that domestication has altered horse behavior. I’d like to see Przewalski’s fill the native horse role instead, as they’re behaviorally “wild”.

  33. Turns out that basing animal rights policy on the strong feelings of animal rights activists is not working out so well for the animals themselves.
    …and this is news, how?

  34. I would say that animals have their rights as they too have feelings and we must find a ways to protect them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.