posted
I've heard that fries fried in horse fat are the absolutle yummiest, crispiest, fabulousest thing ever. I wold try horse meat if the opportunity arose, although I feel no real need to seek it out... but I'm jonesin' after those fries.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmm. Any critter I have not tried is, indeed, a potentially tasty critter. However, I am undecided as to if that means any type of critter or any specific critter. I have not, for instance, been too impressed with bunny when I've eaten it. But I am willing to accept that some future bunny I eat may be delicious.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had rabbit a couple of times... most recently at a rather snooty French place. (Not implying that French people are snooty. Saying that this place is French and tries to be snooty, probably because they think it's what people expect.) It was roasted, I believe, and came out a bit dry. I think it would be much better in a stew, or possibly braised.
I don't think I've had snake, although there have been a few times at dim sum I didn't know what I was eating, just pointed at what looked good.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"although there have been a few times at dim sum I didn't know what I was eating"
*nods*
Yup, and it is a good thing that you didn't ask. I once told a girl once that the dish she was enjoying was actually tripe. I don't think I got a second date from her....
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I'm aware I haven't tried tripe yet. Next time I'm getting the chicken feet, they looked good but I just couldn't quite wrap my mind around the idea.
Some things I need to be in the right mindset for...
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had chicken feet and tripe. They weren't horrible, but they aren't anything I'll ever seek out again.
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, the point of this topic has been missed. Did anyone else read the first article linked? While I have nothing against the consumption of horsemeat (although I definitely wouldn't eat it personally - I'm a vegetarian, and an equine vet tech - it would be like eating one of my pets), I have a problem with the repeal of the ban on the slaughter of wild horses. Raising animals for the specific purpose of eating them is one thing, but I don't agree with capturing wild horses for food. Now, I am sympathetic to the issues brought forth by the farmers and ranchers that the horses are affecting, and the plan of action is seemingly a good one.
quote:Burns said the repeal of the slaughter ban is necessary to manage the herds and protect the range. The measure allows the sale of horses more than 10 years old, as well as any that go unadopted three offerings in a row.
The BLM said it believes the 37,000 free-roaming wild horses and burros on the range are about 9,000 more than natural food supplies can sustain. Its aim is to bring the population down to about 28,000.
On paper, this sounds pretty good. There's an overpopulation problem, and culling the older/unwanted horses is a beneficial solution to the issue. But like anything else of this nature, it can be taken too far. If we legalize the slaughter of the horses now, in ten years what will the population look like? For all I know it could be perfectly healthy and the numbers could be good. It just scares me to think that maybe the horses could be (unintentionally) wiped out by overzealous slaughter for consumption. I'm fairly conservative and for the most part, support President Bush, but his ideas regarding nature and the environment really worry me. Why not allocate some more funds to help the horses? There's got to be a better way to control this. Besides, there is no way to guarantee that with every horse roundup there will be a significant number of horses fitting the description of those to be slaughtered. Will it really be worth the time and money (to those pushing the idea) to capture, say, 5,000 horses and have maybe 1,000 of these be suitable for slaughter? If that happens, isn't there a chance that captured horses will begin to be slaughtered no matter how old or adoptable they are? (Note: These are completely imaginary numbers. I have no idea what the actual ratio would be.)
I'm just worried that it could get out of hand, and before we know it, wild horses could become highly endangered.
What are your thoughts on this?
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I couldn't bring myself to do more than nibble on fried rabbit.. but then again, I was like 12 and the idea of eating a bunny was horrible.
As for eating horse, I believe it's illegal in california. You can't even sell horses to be slaughtered and eaten elsewhere.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just worried that it could get out of hand, and before we know it, wild horses could become highly endangered.
It sounds like the bill doesn't allow indiscriminate slaughter. I'm not sure if it limits by numbers, age, percentage, or what, but it seems this concern was present when the bill was written.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Raising animals for the specific purpose of eating them is one thing, but I don't agree with capturing wild horses for food.
I don't see how it is better to kill an animal that was raised to be slaughtered than to kill an animal that has been able to live its life in the wild. The second actually seems nicer to me.
But then, I have not problems eating pet animals, so I really don't have the same perspective toward animals as most Americans.
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you propose to stop developement, Shan? We have a growing population. Should we never let anyone into the country again and restrict people's right to reproduce?
Heck, with a shrinking population we could let land go wild again!
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I read that the law will also apply to the Burros? And, perhaps, to the little Chimichangas?
Come on, people! They're free range horses! Yum! Kentucky Fried Flicka!
But is it a sign of human overpopulation, or a painful swelling of the underclass that we now have to exploit a previously "untouchable" animal as a government approved food source?
posted
I have a lot of experience with this issue. I did a presentation in high school on the BLM wild horse auctions, which have been going on for years. It's an issue in my state less than others because our mustang population is relatively small, but since federal laws affect us all, it's important that we acknowledge the special regional concerns that are at stake here.
In New Mexico in 1993, an environmental group got an injunction against the annual mustang round-up that the BLM conducts. The round-up is conducted in conjunction with careful biological research - the population that can be sustained in a certain area is determined and only surplus horses are rounded up and sold. Not only does this provide an opportunity for local buyers to get horses at reasonable prices (much of the market is driven by purebred recreational horse owners and it makes it hard to get affordable work horses), it also prevents overpopulation. This specific New Mexico case was based on the fact that some of the horses sold at auction were being bought by Mexicans and slaughtered for meat. Because of the risk of some of the horses being eaten, a local judge stopped the auction one year and, as a result, a large percentage of the wild mustang population starved to death that winter. The argument that we shouldn't permit horses to be killed for humane reasons is absurd in this situation - a couple horses were saved from a quick death and, as a result, they got to die a long, miserable death.
These horses are only rounded up on BLM land. BLM land is not land that is being developed. Especially in Nevada, which is largely federal property, it is not human expansion that is causing these horses to overpopulate. We need to remember that these animals are not a native part of the ecosystem here - they came a few centuries ago and their place here is still very tenuous. Regulations that allow them to be auctioned, adopted out or slaughtered, are only conducted after extensive ecosystem research and are done as a protective act for the mustang population.
I suppose the argument could be made that horses can be adopted out rather than slaughtered, but that's just the problem. The horses that are eligible for slaughter are those who have been up for auction for at least three years. There's not a demand for live work horses like there used to be, but there is a demand for meat. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as the animals are slaughtered humanely.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must admit, I have an emotional reaction to this that makes me sad, but that is because I am biased towards horses. I really appreciate what Annie said, it adds some perspective to it.
I am curious, ever since I was a little kid and played "Zip and Zap" while driving in the car (When you see a horse you say "zip" and get 5 points each. For cows you say "zap" and only get one point.) I have wondered why there are so many more cows out there than horses.
I still wonder that. Is it because horses are much more expensive to maintain? And is that because we care more about the health of our horses, since they are used for things other than meat? Is it because the reproduction of horses is more closely monitored and controlled? Is it because there is just more demand for cows with our desires for meat and dairy than demand for horses which are more for pleasure now-a-days?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Is it because horses are much more expensive to maintain? And is that because we care more about the health of our horses, since they are used for things other than meat? Is it because the reproduction of horses is more closely monitored and controlled? Is it because there is just more demand for cows with our desires for meat and dairy than demand for horses which are more for pleasure now-a-days?
Um... yes. I would say that it's largely the function of horses that makes them so scarce. I do know ranches that still use horses as work animals (not pulling plows and such - but for backcountry transportation. These are usually huge rural cattle or sheep operations), but by and large their use is for pleasure and, consequently, they are very expensive to buy and maintain. Cattle don't eat less, really, but they provide a lot more income and large herds are needed to be maintained as breeding animals for beef operations. (I have limited experience with dairy operations, so I won't comment too much on those.)
Having horses, even a few, is generally a huge money sink. There are people who make money on horses, but they are pretty much exclusively thoroughbred breeders. I had a roommate whose family in Texas makes a remarkable living buying, training, and then selling racehorses, but it's a full-time job for the entire family and requires huge amounts of capital.
Veterinary bills are also a lot more expensive for horses because not only are they large, complicated animals with rather breakable bits, but most horse owners are wealthy and willing to pay. With cattle, injuries much more serious than cuts and bruises warrant not a trip to the vet but hamburgers for dinner.
If the legality of slaughtering horses were to change (as someone mentioned, in some states it's illegal to even sell horses with the intent of slaughtering them), I imagine some of this would change, especially with a large latino population in many of these areas who traditionally have no problem eating horse. In Mongolia, for instance, raising horses provides a very good living for the agricultural class, but that is only because there is a demand and a market for the meat.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Veterinary bills are also a lot more expensive for horses because not only are they large, complicated animals with rather breakable bits, but most horse owners are wealthy and willing to pay.
Of course, if you own a shotgun, YOU can be your horses vet....
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Annie! That makes a whole lot of sense.
quote: Veterinary bills are also a lot more expensive for horses because not only are they large, complicated animals with rather breakable bits, but most horse owners are wealthy and willing to pay. With cattle, injuries much more serious than cuts and bruises warrant not a trip to the vet but hamburgers for dinner.
And this makes a whole heckofalotta sense.
I entertain notions of owning a horse or two someday--much to Porter's consternation. I imagine the upkeep and equipment get pretty pricy. I don't see me paying anywhere near $30,000 to buy a horse though. Egads!
If eating more horse meant there being more horses in existance and them being cheaper to buy and maintain, well IMO that ain't all bad. I don't see me eating *my* pet horse though.
posted
Well, $30,000 would get you a horse with a rather nice bloodline. You can get a friendly old nag for $500 - $1,000.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
