To the Editor:
In response to Joni Lindgren’s letter about Randy Hulgren in the July 18 issue of the Daily Chronicle, it seems that Mr. [Randy] Hultgren knows more about animals’ needs than Ms. Lindgren. I don’t know everything in the King amendment, but I do know there are some things in it that are bad for the animals.
As far as the sows, they are in gestation crates, not cruel cages, so that everyone is allowed to eat what they need at the speed they want. These crates are big enough for them to move back and forth but 99 percent of the time they cannot turn around. This is for the animal’s own protection. When they are in pens, the boss sow takes a bite out of every pile and bites the others sows if they try to take hers. The timid sow goes around and picks up the crumbs after the others have eaten to try to get enough to eat, but the boss sow gets too fat and will have trouble at birth.
Next the gestation crates, teach the gilts, a female pig that has not had babies yet, to lie straight down, not flop down, so that when her litter is born she will not be as likely to lie on her piglets. When she has eight to 12 piglets running around her at 3 or 4 days old, it is difficult for her to lie down and not lay on one.
Next, you are happy they can’t slaughter horses for human consumption in foreign countries. If that were allowed, there would be a market for them other than dog food and glue, which makes them worth very little. If they aren’t worth much people leave them in the pasture and do nothing. These horses get old, cannot be used and need to be fed in the winter. Many people either can’t afford the hay they need or will not get it for them for other reasons. They starve or the humane society takes them away. Being able to sell them for enough money to pay for the trucking to the packing plant and have a little left seems to be a better situation for the horse and the owner both.
Some of the laws are made with only part of the facts and people without all the facts object because they don’t have the facts.