|
It’s a long, littered road of archaic state laws and proposed
new federal ones that are ringing a death knell for horse
slaughter in the United States. It’s a path that bears learning,
though, lest other livestock industry freedoms die at similar
hands.
Texas was home to
two of the three horse packing facilities in the U.S. before
both were shuttered in May. Slaughter opponents used a 1949
state law that was placed on the books originally to prevent
packers from mixing horse meat with beef.
In Illinois, the
nation’s final horse plant is gasping through what appears to be
a final appeal to a new state law banning the slaughter of
horses for human consumption.
If state
regulations weren’t enough, a pending bill in the U.S. House of
Representatives (H.R. 503) seeks to amend the Horse Protection
Act to, “…prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving,
delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or
donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human
consumption, and for other purposes.” A sister bill (S. 311) is
pending in the senate.
On top of that, the
House of Representatives recently approved an Agricultural
Appropriations Bill including language (Sec. 738) to prohibit
the use of any funds to inspect horses at slaughter for human
consumption, or to accept fees for the inspection.
The latter was
petitioned of USDA by the slaughter horse facilities, according
to Brent Gattis, Senior Policy Advisor for Olsson, Frank and
Weeda, P.C. in Washington, D.C., which has been representing the
horse slaughter facilities. The petition was made due to earlier
appropriations language aimed at preventing funds from being
used for horse inspection if they were destined for human
consumption. That’s despite the fact that the U.S. Meat Act is a
mandate for government to provide inspection of any livestock at
slaughter facilities, according to Gattis.
Ultimately, a
federal appeals court blocked USDA from providing these
inspections for a fee.
But the language in the appropriations bills is nothing compared
to what existed before it. In simple terms it would have
prohibited federal veterinary inspection of horses for all
purposes. No more international trading of race horses, no more
competing at international equestrian events. No more circuses
with horses.
“It was unclear
whether you’d even be able to move horses across state lines for
that matter,” says Gattis.
Never mind
commerce, livestock officials were rightfully concerned that the
language opened the door to an animal health nightmare. In a
letter to the chairman of the Agricultural Appropriations
Committee, from 18 livestock organizations—including the
American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP), National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association, American Quarter Horse Association
(AQHA) and Professional Cowboys Rodeo Association—explained the
language would also prohibit inspection of live horses for
disease, as well as inspections at quarantine facilities. The
General Counsel for the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service and
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service also weighed in
against the language.
The Senate has yet
to vote on agricultural appropriations, meaning supporters of
the original version of Sec. 738 could try to revive it.
How We got Here
“This is emotion versus logic, and we never win those kinds of
arguments,” laments Lance Baker, associate professor of animal
science in the Equine Industry Program at the West Texas A&M
University.
If you accept
populist history, it was emotion that started the ball rolling
to begin with. A former Kentucky Derby winner—sold to Japan for
breeding—ended up being a world-class dud in terms if siring
colts that could do little more than keep up with their shadows.
Allegedly, the owner of this expensive lemon ultimately had him
slaughtered—horse meat is common in that country. Some
Thoroughbred owners in the U.S. were aghast that someone would
do something legal with their own personal property, and a
firestorm of influence was ignited.
The emotion is
easy enough to understand.
Many a genuine cowboy has cried rivers when it came time to part
ways with a trusted equine pal. But he understands the bargain:
the four-legged partner gives his all as long as he can; the two
legged one has a responsibility to provide the best, even in the
end, even though it hurts.
Logic doesn’t come as natural to others.
“Most people who
own horses don’t treat them like livestock, they treat them more
like a cross between livestock and a pet… They simply believe
horse meat should never be eaten,” explains Baker. But folks of
this ilk have yet to come up with a viable option for the
foundation of the dilemma created by a ban on horse
slaughter—the unwanted horse.
According to a
report issued by the Animal Welfare Council (AWC) last year
there are about 9.2 million horses in the U.S. (2005). Of those,
until the ban on horse slaughter; AWC estimated approximately 1%
were marketed annually to processing for human consumption. So,
right at 90,000 horses each year.
“Those in favor of
banning horse slaughter say those 90,000 head can be absorbed
into current horse rescue facilities,” says Baker. “First, no
federal regulations exist to govern the care of horses in those
facilities. Second, there aren’t enough rescue facilities to
take care of 90,000 unwanted horses this year, let alone another
80,000-90,000 the year after than and so on.”
Tom Persechino,
Senior Director of Marketing for AQHA, echoes that. “There are
very few, and by that I mean less than a handful of publicly
funded, equine facilities/shelters like those that we have in
every city for dogs and cats,” he says. “If the government is
going to limit processing as an option, they should first
provide economic alternatives for owners. Dog and cat shelters
enjoy wide-spread public support and funding. Shouldn’t horses
have the same option?”
For the record,
Persechino explains AQHA doesn’t favor slaughter, but it
recognizes that processing is a viable, economical and humane
end of life option.
“We also view this
as an owner’s rights issue and remain opposed to this
irresponsible and unnecessary language (in the federal bills),”
says Persechino.
Baker also points
out, “Horse slaughter has always been voluntary. No one ever
held a gun to someone’s head telling them that was their only
option.”
However you
describe it, the alternative for unwanted horses is expensive or
tougher on horses than the alternative that existed before.
On the one hand,
according to AWC, a conservative estimate of the total cost of
caring for unwanted horses, based upon 2005 statistics, is $220
million per year. In a summation of the impact of Sec.738,
Gattis and others wrote, “According to a 2005 study done for the
American Horse Council, the U.S. horse industry (racing,
showing, recreation) involves 9.2 million horses, 4.6 million
people (including nearly 2 million owners), contributes $40
billion a year in direct economic impact and $102 billion in
total economic impact and supports 453,000 jobs directly, and
1.4 million in total.”
Further, Persechino
shares statistics from the AAEP that estimate basic sustenance
horse care at $1,900 per horse per year—food, water and shelter,
but no veterinary or farrier expense. AAEP has opposed the ban
on horse slaughter from the beginning.
That doesn’t count
the estimated $26 million annual revenue from horsemeat sold for
processing prior to the ban, according to AWC.
A Home or Hell
On the other hand, horses are still being sold for slaughter,
but they’re being forced to endure long rides to Canada or
Mexico where horse slaughter is still legal, and where the U.S.
has no control over their treatment.
Keep in mind,
horses destined for slaughter are often not in prime health.
According to AWC, “In a survey, horses at processing plants had
substantially poorer foot and body condition and proved less
sound than horses observed at sales facilities. These
characteristics demonstrate symptoms of lack of care and/or
chronic pathological conditions.”
“The plants in the
United States were all inspected by the federal government, the
American Veterinary Medical Association and the American
Association of Equine Practitioners; they were all accredited as
humane,” emphasizes Baker.
Gattis adds that
since the meat processed in these facilities was destined for
European consumption, a qualified veterinarian was required for
all euthanasia.
When Baker broaches
the subject with his students, some who might initially side
with slaughter ban supporters, he ultimately gets around to
this: Here are these horses the university owns that can no
longer be used because of old age, chronic lameness, and all the
rest.
“Any one of you can
have any one of them. Who wants to give them a home for the rest
of their life?.” No takers over the years, except for one. “Now
you understand the plight of the unwanted horse.”
It’s not much easier when they’re dead.
In a paper entitled
The Unintended Consequences of a Ban on the Humane Slaughter of
Horses in the United States, AWC explains, “For all disposal
methods, except for on-site burial, transportation of the horse
carcass to the disposal site creates issues pertaining to cost,
disease transmission and potential exposure to the public of
deceased animals. The increasing cost and difficulty of carcass
disposal is emerging as a significant issue for horse owners
with limited financial capacity to care for an unwanted horse.”
Renderers are fewer
and farther between. When available, they charge $75-$250,
rather than paying for carcasses like they used to. There’s
incineration, but it’s not necessarily readily available, and it
costs $600-$2,000 says AWC. Newer technologies like composting
and bio-degradation also come at a cost and have unique
environmental or access challenges. Even burial—euthanization by
a veterinarian and disposal at a certified landfill still
willing to accept horse carcasses—will cost $300-$500.
Based on personal
experience, one shared by too many folks at the end of too many
roads, Baker points out, people abandon dogs out in the country,
rather than take them to the local animal shelter, many of which
charge nothing. He wonders what would possess these same people
to pay what it costs to humanely euthanize and dispose of an
unwanted horse.
In fact, that’s
just what lots of people are doing, leaving unwanted horses in
the country: in pastures, tied to fences at training facilities
and sale barns, or simply let loose. Persechino notes, “AQHA has
received countless calls from people (sale barn owners, members,
ranchers, etc.) who have had horses abandoned.”
“Most people know
the damage a deer can cause to people and vehicles when they get
hit. Imagine a thousand-pound horse going through the
windshield. That’s my greatest fear for people, given this
situation,” says Baker.
Private Property
and Economics
Some of these midnight gifters are little better than horse
thieves, in this case expecting others to take care of their
responsibility. For others, it’s undoubtedly a misguided attempt
to provide for their horse when they can’t.
According to the
AWC report, published data for 1994-95 indicates there were
2,277 horse malnutrition cases in California alone, with 321
horses impounded for 15 days to seven months at a cost of $10.25
per day. The most common reason for horse neglect was owner
ignorance (67% response), followed by economic hardship.
Of course, the
processing ban itself contributes to economic hardship.
“In the past the
killer price was salvage value. You took them to the local
auction and got a check for $200-$500,” says Baker.
Incidentally, killer horses were bringing $30-$35/cwt. in West
Texas in August, all of them destined for Mexico.
Plus, Persechino
explains, “From an economic point of view, the bottom price has
been removed, devaluing all horses. This works out to be
unfortunate and problematic for the horse because the economics
works against it. A horse that might have been valued at, say,
$1,000 is now worth less than that. When certain owners cannot
raise enough money to sell it, they certainly aren’t going to
continue paying to care for it. What alternative does the owner
or the horse have left?”
“Without the option
and economic incentive to process horses, the number of animal
neglect cases may double or triple in local communities,”
concludes AWC.
That was the basis
of a joint response from NCBA and 190 other state and national
organizations to the pending federal bills: “…As many as 90,000
horses annually will need care, food and shelter. S. 311, and
legislation in the House, H.R. 503, both fail to address the
problems of costs for care and the unintended mistreatment of
these animals in non-regulated rescue facilities.”
Persechino says, “I think you also can expect tax payers to foot
the bill for horses that become part of the ‘equine welfare’
system, just as we are currently subsidizing wild mustangs and
burros.”
A Hangover in
the Making
All of this is before you consider the troubling precedents the
ban on horse slaughter represents.
“We’re concerned this could set a precedent that would prohibit
processing of other livestock species, since the decision is
based on emotion rather than on science, animal welfare and
animal health,” says Josh Wineganer, Director of Government
Relations for the Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA).
TCFA and other
state associations were heavily involved in the debate over the
horse slaughter facilities in Texas. Because the 1949 law
mentioned earlier was already on the books, Winegarner explains
there was little opportunity to try to convince slaughter ban
supporters of the its unintended consequences.
Likewise, speaking
to the pending federal bills, Persechino explains, “By passing
this legislation, the government would be limiting the way
citizens can manage their personal property. Horses are personal
property protected under the United States 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.”
“This is a good
example what animal rights groups such as the American Humane
Society are willing to do in their effort to prohibit anyone
from owning livestock for any reason,” says Gattis. “It’s also a
good example of what can happen unless the agricultural industry
bands together.”
Obviously, groups
like those mentioned here are spending resources heavily to
protect the welfare of their livestock and their own personal
rights. Even within such groups, though, emotion divides some of
the membership when it comes to horse slaughter.
“I think the
agricultural community is on the same page in this debate for
the most part,” says Winegarner. “However, some organizations
are more actively engaged than others.”
Ironically, Winegarner points out it may become easier to get
the public and their elected officials to recognize the problem
with unwanted horses in light of the ban on horse slaughter as
more horses are abandoned and neglected.
“Continue to
educate your representatives in Congress about any impacts you
see from the ban on horse slaughter, and about the unintended
consequences it could have on other livestock species,” advises
Winegarner.
For its part, the
industry is trying to wrestle with the growing problem of
unwanted horses with nowhere to go, via the Unwanted Horse
Coalition, which was formed in 2005 and later folded into the
American Horse Council. According to Persechino, the
organization’s goal is to educate owners, raise awareness and
facilitate information exchange, ultimately to reduce the number
of unwanted horses and eliminate the problem altogether.
In the meantime,
Baker says, “All of those in favor of the ban can rest easy.
These horses won’t be slaughtered here in facilities we know
handle them humanely. Instead, they’ll be trucked hundreds of
miles to facilities in other countries where we have no control
over their treatment.” |
