IN THIS ISSUE...

• Horse Controversy

• Just 5 Questions

• Photo Contest

• World According To Hooter

EDITORIALS

• TRAILS
• GAP

Many people in this movement are motivated by what they consider to be love of horses or the logic that since Americans don’t eat horsemeat we should not have our faithful companions end up on European tables. But this issue is much more complex than whether or not people should eat horses.

The situation is compounded by the fact that our horse population is at a record high and the downturn in economy has made it financially difficult or impossible for some people to continue to keep their horses, or to feed the older, retired horses for a number of years after they are no longer useful. The slaughter issue is impacted by the increase in unwanted horses. Recognizing this, a growing element within the horse industry is working together to try to resolve the issue of unwanted horses.

VOICES AGAINST SLAUGHTER – Most of the animal welfare/animal rights/rescue organizations have taken a stand against sale of horses to processing plants. The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) are the two most active lobbying groups for ending horse slaughter. AWI helped write the first piece of legislation (HR 3781) during the 107th Congress, in 2001, but it did not pass. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act was introduced in 2003, 2004 and 2005 and finally passed the House in 2006, but was not voted on in the Senate.

The push to ban horse slaughter was joined by a growing number of smaller groups, including Humanity Against Horse Slaughter, Ban Horse Slaughter in Canada, Equine Protection Network (EPN), Fans of Barbaro (FOB), and others.

Other animal welfare groups are also pushing to end horse processing. Animal’s Angels reports on conditions at feedlots, kill market auctions, slaughter plants and transportation of animals. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) also opposes horse slaughter.
In 2007, the last remaining horse processing plants in the U.S (2 in Illinois and one in Texas) closed, due to state legislation in those respective states—spurred by local anti-slaughter movements. A statement by FOB said that closing of U.S. slaughter plants “derailed the major arguments put forth by the pro-slaughter lobbies of the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA), American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) and American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). Their public rationale for supporting horse slaughter was that it was better to slaughter our own horses, where we have jurisdiction over the slaughter process, than to export the slaughter of our horses across borders where we have no oversight. Sadly, the AQHA, AAEP and AVMA remained steadfast in their support for horse slaughter once domestic slaughter was effectively ended, shifting their rationale to an ‘unwanted horses’ argument.”

The FOB statement says “domestic slaughter is only over until another state, that does not have anti-horse slaughter legislation in place, opens up a horse slaughter plant. South Dakota tried to do this in early 2008.” Today there are more than a dozen state legislatures considering measures to support or encourage re-establishment of horse processing plants in the U.S. and Montana recently passed legislation to allow slaughter plants and limit court actions against such businesses.

“This underscores the importance of passing legislation at the federal level,” according to FOB. This would also address the issue of transportation; horses would not be allowed to ship to Canada or Mexico for slaughter.

Cooperation among anti-slaughter groups has been lacking, however, and one reason for this, according to FOB is the need for secrecy in planning strategy, “to avoid alerting the pro-slaughter side to our strategy. Secrecy can also be perceived as lack of trust between the different anti-slaughter groups, and also disrupts their effectiveness. This also results in individual groups wanting to dominate the grass roots effort and being closed to the idea that there are multiple groups that need to work together.”

Some anti-slaughter groups have put pressure on FOB and rescue groups that try to save horses, saying that the money used for rescuing horses could be better used to support lobbying efforts to end horse slaughter. Animal rights groups like PETA, for instance have a totally different agenda, which includes halting the use of any livestock for meat, and banning many equine activities like racing or rodeo. As stated by FOB, “some of the concern of the agricultural and veterinary lobbies is that if horse slaughter is banned, then cattle, pigs, etc. cannot be far behind.”

Though there are many groups wanting to ban horse slaughter, they differ on animal welfare issues. “Those differences create tension for developing consistent arguments and rationale for ending horse slaughter. There is also criticism leveled at animal welfare groups, that their concern for horse slaughter is driven by fundraising goals,” according to the FOB statement.
Most of the groups fighting to end slaughter are animal welfare/animal rights groups, not horsemen’s groups. Some want to end or radically change equine sports. FOB’s position is that horse slaughter is inhumane. “The process of collecting and shipping horses to slaughter is also inhumane. They go through auctions, into kill pens with other horses, and then are shipped to slaughter over long distances in cramped conditions. Exporting horses for slaughter is happening more now with the elimination of domestic slaughter.”

Christine Berry, Equine Protection Network (EPN) says her group is opposed to slaughter because Americans do not eat horses and because horse slaughter is inhumane. “As an American you will never convince me it is OK to eat a horse, a dog, a cat or any other animal that Americans consider non-food animals.”

Berry says pro-slaughter arguments include the fact that if the method of death is humane, what does it matter what happens to the carcass? “Culture determines how we dispose of our dead, how we live, what we eat. The issue is not about cruelty, it is not about the method of death, it is about the disposal of the carcass. It is about the fact that we are talking about EATING a horse, an animal that as an American I do not eat and no science will ever convince me it is ok to eat. If given the chance tomorrow, Americans would overwhelmingly vote to outlaw slaughter. Despite special interests and lobbyists who have stalled the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act in Congress, the fact remains that there are no slaughterhouses in the US where there once were 14. Why? Because this is the America, where horses are revered and not classified as food animals.”

VOICES OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT ANTI-SLAUGHTER LEGISLATION – Many groups within the horse industry oppose the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, not necessarily because they want horses to be sold for meat, but because the legislation does not address the problem of what to do with all the unwanted horses. It doesn’t address issues of carcass disposal (if animals can’t be sold and must be put down), enforcement of the slaughter ban, or funding. Many people within the industry fear that losing the option of sale means there will be more horses abandoned or neglected by owners who can no longer care for them or find other homes for them.

There have always been horses that for some reason are no longer wanted by their owners, but this number has dramatically increased during the past 8 years. Therefore sales to meat processors increased also. Several events brought this issue to public attention. The BSE outbreak in Europe in 2000 and Foot and Mouth epidemic in the UK in 2001 increased the demand for horsemeat in Europe since their cattle herds were decimated. This drew media attention to horse processing plants in the U.S. and spurred various groups to work toward introducing federal legislation to ban horse slaughter. It also fostered realization in the U.S. horse industry that there was an unwanted horse issue. In 2002 only 63,000 U.S. horses were processed, and by 2008 more than 125,000 were sent to Mexico/Canada for processing.

Most segments of the horse industry recognize that the slaughter issue is just one small aspect of a bigger problem. In 2005 the AAEP formed the Unwanted Horse Coalition, headed by Tom Lenz, DVM. “It was our observation that horsemen were becoming divided over horse slaughter and the legislation to outlaw it. The horsemeat industry in the U.S. is a relatively small player, driven by availability of inexpensive horses, not by the price of horsemeat,” says Lenz.

“There are many more U.S. horses discarded each year than were going for slaughter. Horses sold for meat were bringing about $100 to $200. We felt the important issue was not horse slaughter per se, but that we are throwing away horses.” The AAEP coined the term unwanted horses and defined them as horses no longer wanted by their current owners because they are old, sick, injured, unmanageable or fail to meet their owners’ expectations.
According to Dr. Sarah Ralston (Rutgers University), a member of the Unwanted Horse Coalition, “They also need to include another category—horses whose owners are no longer financially capable of taking care of them.”

A person who can’t afford to keep the horse may not be able to pay the cost of disposal ($300 to $400 in some parts of the country). In many eastern jurisdictions it is illegal to bury a horse on your property. “Cremation and incineration are regulated by the EPA and the cost for this option may be $600 to $2000,” says Ralston. Processing for meat is simpler and more practical.

Regarding whether processing plants are a humane death or not, Ralston says many people are adamant in their feelings that killing a horse via captive bolt is inhumane. “But when it’s done by trained personnel, such as operators at the processing plant, it is instantaneous. I have seen so-called humane euthanasia, by contrast, where horses given lethal injections go down very hard, linger and struggle for awhile,” she says. Humane death is not a simple black and white issue.

Ralston also wonders why some people fuss about using horses for meat. “When horses are unwanted, they are going to be humanely destroyed one way or another. So why the concern about what happens to that carcass after the horse is dead?”

The AAEP position is not pro-slaughter but states that until the unwanted horse issue can be resolved, euthanasia at a federally regulated processing plant is an acceptable alternative to abuse, neglect or abandonment. “This is more caring and responsible than the people who say we can’t kill them, that we should leave them alive to suffer,” says Ralston. The growing numbers of abandoned and neglected horses cannot be ignored.

Tom Lenz says the Unwanted Horse Coalition and a number of other groups have raised awareness about the problem. “Membership of the coalition now includes about 25 organizations and is fairly representative of the horse industry—including AAEP, AVMA, many breed registries, etc. I think the horse industry has turned its attention to the issue and is working hard to resolve it. By contrast, if you mentioned unwanted horses in 2005, no one had heard that term. The fact that 97 percent of the people we recently surveyed were well aware of it indicates that it is an issue. It also indicates that every major breed association is working on ways to address and resolve it. That, to me, is a big step in the right direction,” says Lenz.

AQHA 2009 STATEMENT OF POSITION ON H.R. 503 – “The AQHA supports the humane treatment of horses and vigorous enforcement of reasonable state and federal laws intended for that purpose…Therefore AQHA supports and joins with the Unwanted Horse Coalition whose mission is to reduce the number of unwanted horses and to improve their welfare through education, and the efforts of organizations committed to the health, safety, and responsible care and disposition of these horses…AQHA opposes abolishing the option of horse processing until there are provision to take care of the 80,000 to 100,000 horses that meet that end each year. Consistent with positions established by the AAEP and AVMA, AQHA supports the humane, USDA supervised end-of-life process as a much better option than starvation, neglect or inhumane treatment inside or outside of the United States.

To date, no proposed state or federal law has addressed funding of care for unwanted horses, long term placement of affected horses or established guidelines for standards of care at retirement and rescue facilities. Failing to address these core issues adversely affects the welfare of horses.

Additionally, horses as livestock are personal property protected under the U.S. Constitution. Any law that would result in “taking” of personal property without just compensation or valid purpose is a violation of an individual’s constitutional rights. Furthermore, it is a violation of the Commerce Clause to unreasonably restrict interstate trade of property.

Therefore, AQHA continues to oppose the provisions of state or federal legislation intended to (a) prohibit the humane end-of-life processing of horses, and (b) prohibit the humane transport of horses within the U.S. that may be destined to processing plants.”

THE NEED FOR RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP – “Current rescue and retirement facilities are unable to accommodate the large number of unwanted horses. There is a huge need for pre-ownership education,” says Ralston. “The goal of the Unwanted Horse Coalition is to help educate potential owners about costs of ownership, and proper husbandry.” A study in Colorado in 2008 showed that the main reason horses became unwanted was that horse care was too expensive. Second was horses’ poor health and third was loss of interest.
Horsemen also need to cut back on breeding. “Many people buy a mare and then decide to breed her just because they want to see babies, or breed inferior quality horses just because they have a mare or stallion,” says Ralston.

“We are never going to completely eliminate the unwanted horse problem. We cannot prevent aging, injuries, poor athletes or unattractive horses. We can minimize the problem, however, by buying rather than breeding, adopting rather than buying, or finding alternative careers for certain horses, and euthanizing rather than discarding,” says Ralston.

Rescue/retirement facilities are limited in how many animals they can take. It costs about $2300 per year per horse to feed them. Rescues are helpful but not the whole answer. The Unwanted Horse Coalition feels the problem must be solved on the front end, with fewer horses produced—and people need to become more responsible on the rear end, to deal with horses that are no longer wanted, rather than just taking them to a sale barn. Many equine associations are working toward matching up unwanted horses with would-be new owners or adopters, but as Tom Lenz points out, the answers to this problem will take all of us, working together.

SIDEBAR: HOW THE OPINIONS SPLIT – In general, horse owners and horse influencers (veterinarians, trainers, equine media, equine associations) have a different view about the issues (why we have unwanted horses and who is responsible for solving this and how it should be solved) than do rescue/welfare organizations and the non-horse owning public, according to Lenz. There is also a large politically active group who don’t own horses and don’t intend to own horses but want to sway public opinion to protect horses from slaughter.

Some of these well-meaning people may only be involved with horses via a humane association, animal welfare group or rescue facility and many are officers in some type of voluntary organization, using their organization for influence on legislation to protect horses.
“Many of the rescue/welfare groups, and general public, believe that the breed associations are responsible for the surplus of horses and should therefore be responsible for solving it, whereas horse owners and influencers believe that closing the slaughter plants, the economy, and individual horse owners are responsible for the problem and that the individual horse owner is responsible for solving the unwanted horse situation,” says Lenz.

The most vocal people against horse slaughter are highly visible and their stories touch everyone’s heart. “Their opinion is dramatically influenced by the media, but they are also the first contact for the media because of their great emotional stories,” he says.

STATE LEGISLATURES MOVE TO ALLOW HORSE PROCESSING PLANTS – After the movement to ban horse processing in the U.S. and the closure of the last 3 equine slaughter plants (the final closure in 2007 in DeKalb, Illinois, thanks to an Illinois law prohibiting slaughter of horses for human consumption), the only places to send horses have been Canada and Mexico. Closure of this last slaughterhouse had a devastating effect on many ranchers and other horse owners who in the past have been able to take old or unwanted horses to an auction market—where killer buyers could pick them up and send them to slaughter.

Cases of neglect and abandonment of horses have dramatically increased, escalating tremendously during the past year due to economic hard times—as more and more horse owners are unable to care for their animals and now have no outlet for selling them. In the West, horses are being turned out on roadways (where they pose a danger to motorists) or onto public land. Some people are shooting their horses at landfills or in public areas. On February 5, 2009, BLM officials in Idaho found 15 dead horses on BLM land. Humane societies have taken in numerous starving animals whose owners have left them in fields or corrals with no feed.

Realizing the need for processing plants where horses can be humanely disposed of and processed for pet food or shipped overseas for human consumption, a number of states have introduced legislation to allow slaughterhouses. North Dakota is looking at the feasibility of opening a processing plant, and Wyoming gave approval to a measure requesting Congress not interfere with shipment and slaughter of unwanted horses. A South Dakota reservation is investigating the possibility of building a plant. Other states considering measures to support or actively encourage re-establishment of horse processing plants include Arizona, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri and Tennessee.

A Montana state Representative, Ed Butcher, introduced a bill in his state (House Bill 418) to limit what a state court could do to stop or delay construction of a horse processing plant. He says this bill would give investors assurance that Montana would treat their businesses fairly if they build a plant in this state. He wanted a bill “with strong enough language to protect a plant from being forced out of business by animal rights radicals who in 2006 and 2007 forced 3 plants in the U.S. to close.” This bill establishes liability limits for investors if they face lawsuits or action by Congress to ban slaughter of horses in the U.S.

In 2007, when the last U.S. plant closed, 78,000 horses were exported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter, according to USDA statistics. Slaughtering those horses here in the U.S. makes a lot more sense, for financial and humane reasons.

“Selling horses for slaughter was an option when the country had the facilities to take them, but now people are left with the cost of euthanasia plus disposal fees that can run into hundreds of dollars—if they don’t decide to just abandon the animals,” says Butcher. He feels the slaughter industry would provide much needed employment, in preparing meat for sale to Europe and the packaging of dog food. While some people oppose the sale of horses for meat, others who find slaughter a practical alternative should be able to have this option, according to Butcher.

The Montana bill had a lot of support from people in rural areas, and from horse groups including the Montana Back Country Horsemen and Montana Quarter Horse Association. In early May it became law—paving the way for re-establishment of horse slaughter plants in the U.S. Some people are wondering what will happen if the anti-slaughter bill still pending on Congress becomes law, but Ed Butcher thinks the federal law would violate international trade as well as the Constitutional guarantee that the federal government will not impede interstate commerce. If an international company built a processing plant in Montana and the federal government tried to close it, the international company could take the case to international court because of trade agreements. Will the states prevail over federal attempts to halt horse processing? Only time will tell.