Golden Days

The Last of the Real Cowboys

2012-01-23T13:33:00.000-05:00

Indy Grazin'

This post originally appeared in Jerry Finch's "Habitat for Horses" blog. Habitat for Horses is one of the most highly regarded rescues in the country, giving homes to not only horses but other animals as well. In his blog, Jerry regularly writes articles of this caliber. Go see for yourself ~

The Last of the Real Cowboys

21 Jan

I’ve known a lot of ranchers in my life; good, honest men with a work ethic born of pride in the job they do, men who think nothing of rolling out round bales of hay in minus 20 degree weather, who would go out in a rainstorm and bring an abandoned calf into the barn and bottle feed it for days on end because, “he deserves a chance.” On the flat plains of north Texas, life on the range could destroy the weak, but for those who persevered it could turn them into the very best of the human race.

Cowboy's way of life

Back in the early days of my youth, I thought that all real men held those values. I was proud to ride horses beside them, to be considered one of them, even if it meant an occasional joke about me being just a kid. I’m sure there were bad guys, I just didn’t know them. I knew there was horse slaughter back then, too, but the cowboys I knew would have nothing to do with it.

One hard, thin old man called me over one day and, holding a horse, said, “Look at this horse and tell me what you see, boy.”

I’m sure I said something half hearted, but his response is still with me. “If you have a clean heart, when you look into his eyes you will see the face of God. You respect what’s inside that horse, boy, and the horse will always respect you.”

A few weeks later, when school was out for the summer, he offered me a job. Being a new teenager, I thought I knew a lot, but the bottom line on horses is that talking doesn’t account for anything. It’s the doing that gets the job done.

The first day I walked up and met the ranch foreman. He was a weathered old cowboy that could cuss more in 30 seconds than most sailors could do in a lifetime. The day I started he pointed to the corral holding about 10 horses and said, “Whatever horse you catch is the one you ride.” Nine other cowboys walked out with me to the corral, each caught a horse within a few minutes, saddled up and headed out to work the cattle. I was left alone with a mare that had absolutely no love for humans.

Trying to catch a horse

The old man did nothing more than stand on the porch, watching. Not a word escaped him as I followed that horse around the corral for what seemed like two hours. Once I sat down, fed up with the horse, mad at myself and disgusted at the world.

“I guess you think that horse is gonna’ put the saddle on by herself?” he said, leaning against the porch post. I stood up, dusted myself off and started again. Another two hours passed and, to my complete surprise, the horse walked over to me and stood still as I put the lead rope over her neck, put on the halter and led her to where I had the saddle. Another five minutes and I was sitting on her, fully expecting to hear the old man laugh at me and tell me that he didn’t need me anymore.

He didn’t. Instead he opened the gate to let me through and said words that I carry with me to this day, “You didn’t give up. That’s the kind of person we need.” That was the first day of my first real job at age 14, a cowboy, working with men who had been doing it their whole lives. I value those memories as if they were gold. And those men? They are rare today. I’m sure a few still exist. I might see one or two a year, but it’s a dying breed, replaced by the white hats, white starched shirts and bolo ties of citified “cowboys” who work at the American Quarter Horse Association, headquartered in Amarillo, the town where I grew up. What few still exist gather on occasion at the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raiser’s Association, an organization designed to “Honor and Protect the Ranching Way of Life.”

Both of those organizations promote the commercial slaughter of horses. Neither organization ever polled its members to see if they agree.

Neither has the American Veterinarian Medical Association or the American Association of Equine Practitioners. No votes, no poll, just those in power taking the position that they know what this country needs more than the membership and thus will dictate what is to be believed.

The Cattleman’s Association spread the word that giving in to those “damn animal activist” and stopping horse slaughter is the start of a “slippery slope” that will lead to the end of all animal processing in the US and the total and complete destruction of the “American Way of Life.” Ignoring the fact that 80% of the population is against horse slaughter and could thus be considered as “animal activist,” and that the vast majority of that 80% of the American population drives the market for beef, pork and chicken. The ranchers somehow bought the story because the Association told them so.

Same with the “personal property” argument. “Those horses are your personal property. Are you going to let those left wing sickos tell you what you can and can’t do with your own property?”

And the reason they spend so much time and energy trying to convince the ranchers and the rest of the public that horse slaughter is necessary is because ….

… neglect and starvation are increasing because the slaughterhouses closed down and we need horse slaughter again.

… massive numbers of horses are being abandoned all across the nation.

… old horses are left in pastures to starve to death.

… the trip to Mexico and Canada is too long and they are concerned for the welfare of the horses.

… too many horses are untrained and dangerous and we need a way to get rid of them.

… no one wants old, sick, injured horses so the best way to dispose of them is to send them to slaughter.

… the American public needs our help to rid ourselves of all the unwanted horses.

One after another, the stories continue. Without any factual basis, stories made up in the boardrooms and promoted throughout the network to end up as facts in newspapers and magazines and discussed in the annual meetings.

Don’t dare dig too deep, don’t disturb the cover story, because under all that glitter of authority is something very ugly, something that doesn’t do well in daylight, something never even whispered. It crawls through the slaughter industry like fat maggots, feeding on the putrid lies and deceit of pure evil.

The face of horse slaughter is uncontrolled abuse, naked hatred of living animals, lust for money no matter how much it is soaked in blood and guts.

Here’s something you should listen to, the words of a trucker who got stuck hauling horses to the border to be slaughtered.

A quote from a killer-buyer, ““We shoot them full of steroids to beef them up so we can get more for them at the slaughterhouse.”

From another killer-buyer, “If they start kicking, we poke their eyes out. That calms them down real fast.”

“We don’t need paperwork. We have a ton of it.”

“We travel at night so we don’t get stopped. We’re suppose to have health certificates going into Texas but hell, they never stop us.”

“The reason you see skinny horses wandering around? We dump them on the way. They only want fat, young horses. Taking something old or skinny is a waste of time.”

So this is the best that the horse slaughter industry has to offer. These are the only logical, valued, bold statements the industry can produce, and that I’m sure they make one proud enough to stand up and say, “I believe in horse slaughter!” in front of the kids, in public.

In the darkness of the night the horses are crammed into trucks – shocked, beaten, terrified. We trained them to respect us, to trust us, to believe that we will protect them, yet in their final hour we betray them, we turn our backs to their screams. In the horror of their death, we count the bloody dollars we’ve crammed in our pockets. This is what the American cowboy has become. All for the love of money.

Now I ask you this – who is destroying the “American Way of Life”? Is it the 80% of us who are against horse slaughter because we value an animal that is so unique in God’s world? Or is it those who value the crumpled dollars in their pockets more than they value any connection to another living creature?

Is it the politicians who support the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, who have ignored the pledges of the lobbyist and the pats on the back of the big organizations who want a way to dispose of their horses, or those politicians who accept the “donations” and agree that horses need mercy killing and do everything they can to kill the bills in the Senate?

A few months ago I was at the vet clinic with one of our horses. There was a stereotypical old cowboy before me, weathered face, worn-out body, bowlegged, holding on to an aged horse that was obviously in pain. Doc did the usual, but the belly was swelling fast, a sure sign that the intestines just ruptured. Doc looked at the cowboy and shook his head.

That old cowboy heaved over in tears. He loved that horse. It was his friend, his best buddy, his partner, and letting go was just as hard as it would have been letting go of a child. That was one of the last real cowboys I’ve seen.

The Old Cowboy

As the old saying goes, “Real cowboys don’t eat their horses.”

If you want to rant and rave about how horse slaughter is necessary because of X, Y and Z, face up to the fact that we both know the truth. It’s only about money. It’s about the 1% of the horses in this country that the wealthy in Europe want to eat and for which they are willing to pay, and it’s the very small number of people in the US who are hell-bent to provide the horses and feed the slaughter machine, all for the love of money.

There is nothing else involved.

Treachery of Congressional Horse Slaughter Cabal Exposed in Ad Campaign

2012-01-02T11:46:00.002-05:00

January1, 2012

FORIMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

JohnHolland

540-268-5693

john@equinewelfarealliance.org

VickiTobin

630.961.9292

vicki@equinewelfarealliance.org

Treacheryof Congressional Horse Slaughter Cabal Exposed in Ad Campaign

Chicago(EWA) – Equine Welfare Alliance (EWA) launched a major campaign onDecember 30 to exposethe underhanded move by Rep. Jack Kingston (GA) and Sens. Kohl (WI)and Blunt (MO) that reinstated horse inspections and opened the wayfor horse slaughter to return to US soil.

Ona must pass bill, the three legislators in a tiny committee, quietlyremoved the language that prohibitedthe use of taxpayer dollars to fund horse inspections. The actioneffectively legalized horseslaughter in the US without a debate in the full house and senate,where a straight vote would have failed.

Thead campaign was launched in major theaters running the War Horse filmin the legislator’s districtsand also reached out to Montana and Wyoming to cover Sen. Baucus andstate Rep. Sue Walliswho has become the face of horse slaughter as well as Wallis’Representative Cynthia Lummis of WY.

Featuredin the ad is a remarkable Korean War hero; an equine named Reckless.The ad uses this oneremarkable equine and her war time heroism to make the point thathorses are our animal partnersand not just “livestock”, explains EWA Vice President VickiTobin.

Sgt.Reckless hauled supplies to Marines, carried wounded off the battlefield, was wounded twice, andperformed many of her duties without a handler. StaffSergeant Reckless was a beloved legendof the Marine Corps. She was promoted to sergeant in 1957 and then tostaff sergeant in 1959 by the Commandant of the Marines. She wasretired in 1960 to Camp Pendleton and when she died in 1968, she wasburied at Camp Pendleton with full military honors.

Rep.Jack Kingston excused his action saying horses were “just likecows”.

Ifthe funding move was designed to deal a death blow to theanti-slaughter movement it appears to have had the opposite effect.“We were able to raise the funding for the campaign and produce itin just two weeks”, explained Tobin.

Themove has not been popular with Congress either. With an all time lowapproval rating, members did not need such a blatant example ofpandering to special interests. Over 50 Congressmen and Senatorssigned on as cosponsors of the American Horse Slaughter PreventionAct (H.R. 2966 / S. 1176) after the language was removed.

JohnHolland, president of EWA stated “This is not the end. We want tosend a message that if you betrayour horses we will haunt you to the ends of the earth. We willcontinue to attack these individualsas long as we have resources and they are in office.” When askedwhy the EWA was attackingSenator Kohl, given that he has announced he will not run forreelection, Holland said “We want his successor to have anexample.”

Thefunding action is seen by the EWA as just one more example of howspecial interests are runningour country and through the ad campaign, the EWA is joining thegrowing chorus shouting“enoughis enough”. Legislation should be enacted because of its merits,not the deep pockets of Big Agriculture or any other special interestgroup. Our horses belong in the horse industry, not a foreignmeat business.

EWAand equine advocates across the country are calling on PresidentObama to stand up against specialinterests as he promised and issue an immediate executive order toban the slaughter to slaughter of America’s domestic and wild horses.

Linkto the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlv7P6xWekE

Linkto ad referral site: www.realwarhorse.com

Linkto EWA site: http://www.equinewelfarealliance.org/Real_War_Horse.html

TheEquine Welfare Alliance is a dues-free 501c4, umbrella organizationwith over 210 member organizationsand hundreds of individual members worldwide. The organizationfocuses its efforts on thewelfare of all equines and the preservation of wild equids.www.equinewelfarealliance.org

Investigation on Horse Meat Entering Europe From America

2011-12-16T20:30:00.000-05:00

Italian Horse Protection Association

Investigation on horse meat entering Europe from America

In the USA there is no differentiation between FPA (Food Producing Animal) and non-FPA equidae; horses are simply not considered as part of the food chain. US' horses are slaughtered in Canada and Mexico (and perhaps in the USA re-starting in 2012). Horse meat is exported primarily to Europe (France, Belgium, Italy and Germany are the main horse-meat eating countries). The significant point here is therefore that any horse, not being considered part of the food chain, can be treated with any and all drugs which the vet - or indeed simply the owner - considers necessary, with no formal requirements to observe or fulfil.

The European Union, quite rightly severe (although in our opinion not sufficiently) with its own producers, from whom it demands a strict record of all drugs administered to animals destined for human consumption in the name of the health and safety of the consumer, accepts a mere declaration by the owner of the horse that no drug which is inadmissible in Europe has been administered to the animal, or that due time has elapsed between the administration of drugs, and slaughter. This document should also contain all the necessary information for identification of the equine.

Volunteers from the Equine Welfare Alliance (an alliance of animal rights associations, with members in 18 countries among which Italy, represented by IHP) travelled to New Holland in Pennsylvania, USA to a market for horses destined for slaughter in Canada, to see just how these declarations worked. The volunteers photographed as many declarations as they could manage to get their hands on for a moment: they were all actually blank with just a signature and then just stuck onto any horse, indiscriminately. In one case, there are two pages, one with just a signature and no further details about the horse, the other a blank piece of paper with the name and address of the vendor, plus a comment on how strong and healthy the horse is, and the phrase ‘no drugs'. The practice begs the question, even if the forms were filled in correctly, as to what guarantee there is that the vendor is telling the truth? The Equine Welfare Alliance immediately sent their photos to the competent authority in the EU but has to date received no reply.

Take a look at the certificates.

Given the situation, some university researchers (Nicholas Dodman, Tufts University, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Massachussets; Nicolas Blondeau University of NIce “Sophia Antipolis”, Institute of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology , France, and Ann M. Marini, University of Bethesda, Department of Neurology, Maryland) put to the test a theory, cross checking the data of some of the animals sent for slaughter with the data banks from racecourses where the horses had run. Those data bases contain the records, required by anti-doping laws, of treatments with phenylbutazone (commercial name: Bute), a non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug commonly used on horses but which is prohibited in Europe for horses destined for human consumption.

By means of a complex procedure, the researchers uncovered information about the data of races of 16 horses out of 50 of those under study. The result of the study is that all the horses whose data was located had been treated with Bute, some of them only one week before slaughter. However the data uncovered was relative to race dates, while not all treatments administered are logged if they are not close to the date of a race. Horse meat exported to Europe, therefore, is very likely indeed to contain traces of prohibited substances, and not only of fenilbutazone.

Read here the full text of the article by Dodman, N., et al. Association of phenylbutazone usage with horses bought for slaughter: A public health risk. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2010), (doi:10.1016/j.fct.2010.02.021)

After having read the results of this research, we looked further and found a shocking list of drugs and hormones, in every day use on horses in America but severely restricted (or indeed actually prohibited) in Europe because they are dangerous, some very dangerous, to human health. Some hormones permitted in the USA but prohibited, or at any rate strictly regulated in the EU, can be considered so dangerous that some transatlantic health organisations advise, for example: "It is recommended that pregnant women do not handle this product and that the person carrying the container for the oral administration of the product should wear at least two pairs of disposable gloves and be assisted by someone who can open the doors for them, in order to avoid the risk of contamination”.

Digging even deeper we came across something that we would never have wanted to find. Two inspection reports of the EU dated autumn 2010, one in Canada, one in Mexico, following an EU inspection to ensure that horse meat produced there reached an acceptable standard for European public health.

The results of the two inspections are chilling: two slaughter houses in Mexico are completely inadequate, yet anyhow authorised to export meat to the EU. The Mexican authorities “promised” the inspectors that they will not issue export certificates for meat from those two abattoirs. Other slaughter houses “ONLY” had the problem of non-drinkable water, hygiene issues, and, naturally, no check on the veracity of the certificates about drugs. The inspection concluded that the slaughter houses, even though authorised to export to Europe, are not in line with the set standards. Imports to date have not ceased. The situation in Canada is slightly better but even there, apart from some hygiene problems there is absolutely no check on the presence of drugs, apart from the ridiculously inadequate declaration of the vendor.

Read the Canadian inspection report.
Read the Mexican inspection report.

This situation is not only very serious from the point of view of public health, due to the amount of dangerous or very dangerous drugs the consumer is ingesting, but is it totally scandalous, if we think that the authorities who are supposed to watch over these things are perfectly aware of what has been going on since autumn 2010, quite likely even earlier, and who not only have photographs showing how the ‘certificates' are produced, but also have the word of their very own inspectors, who declare in writing that there can be no guarantee for the public health.

As if this was not enough , it is a common myth in some Countries that horse meat should be given often to children and pregnant women, and to cure anaemia. In other words to all those who should be the object of increased health protection. Health protection that the EU fails to give.

The True Cost of Canada's Horse Meat Industry

2011-12-04T10:04:00.001-05:00

Pasture to Plate

The True Cost of Canada's Horsemeat Industry

The Canadian Horse Defence Coalition (CHDC) presents a fourth investigation documenting inhumane horse slaughter at a Canadian slaughterhouse and provides compelling evidence that the much touted Equine Identification Document (EID) program put forward by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) invites fraud.

Despite past reassurances from the CFIA and industry that horse slaughter plant conditions would be improved, this investigation demonstrates that yet a fourth Canadian slaughterhouse is in violation of humane slaughter regulations.The CHDC has once again received undercover footage - this time from Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation, Inc., in St. Andre-Avellin, Qubec.

The footage was captured on July 13th and 14th of 2011 and was sent anonymously to the CHDC.

Those of us who have examined the video have been shocked and sickened by what we've viewed. We consulted Dr. Nicholas Dodman, an expert in animal behaviour and anesthesiology at Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. Dodman had this to say: "...my final conclusion, after reviewing 150-plus horse slaughters in this series of videos, is that the process was terrifying for most of the horses and, in many cases, horribly inhumane. The inhumane treatment of horses at Les Viandes de la Petite Nation must be stopped immediately."

The evidence is clear: it is impossible, even in well-designed, conscientiously-managed, assembly-line conditions, to humanely slaughter horses. As Dr. Dodman states, "...many head shy or apprehensive horses...presented the operator of the captive bolt gun with a moving target."

Examples of stun box failures noted:

- More than 40% of the horses were not stunned after the 1st shot as required by "humane slaughter" regulations. Captive bolt pistol placement was poor - some horses were shot into their temples, under their ears or at the base of their brain. These horses showed clear signs of ineffective stunning or revival in the form of remaining standing, standing back up, winnying or head-shaking. Up to eleven attempts were made to stun one horse (Horse 33 Day 1) who suffered for almost 4 minutes.

- While we were not able to see into the area where the horses were suspended and butchered, at times the shooter carried a captive bolt pistol out from the area to hose it off as it became too bloody. This captive bolt pistol was a different style and higher calibre than the one normally used in the stun box. Only with excessive bleeding, such as during bleed-out, would the pistol become so blood covered. Blood was not seen or sprayed off the pistol used in the kill line, which raises the question whether horses were shot while being bled out.

- Over 80% of the horses showed signs of fear: their knees trembled and buckled, they lost their footing and repeatedly fell.

- 14% of the horses vocalized (provoked by stress or agitation). Some whinnied even after being shot.
- Government inspectors turned a blind eye to violations of the "humane" slaughter regulations. Over the course of 2 days a government inspector could be seen looking into the stun box (sometimes with no horse present) for a total of just 3 1/2 minutes. One horse revived (Horse 64 Day 1) while the inspector was observing, but while it seems the inspector requested another shot be given, the shooter simply winked at him but delivered no further shots.

In our opinion, the system brought in by the CFIA to meet European standards for food safety and traceability is flawed and incomplete, and appears to invite fraud. Examples of issues include:

- Incomplete owner information

- Incomplete agent information

- Poor identification of horses/erroneous information given, such as age, colour markings, tattoos, primary location, sex of animal etc.

- Information often appeared to be filled out by auction mart not the owner

- Use of a stamp instead of original signature by agent

The EID system, touted by the Canadian government as a document that ensures "a continuous medical history" on each horse presented for slaughter, is far from a guarantee that food safety is being addressed.

"Dirty Little Secret - Canada's slaughter industry under fire", published by the Toronto Star on July 30, 2011, provided a close look at Canada's horse slaughter system. The article took readers from a U.S. auction (Shipshewana, Indiana) to the door of a Canadian slaughterhouse. This investigation shows what lies beyond that door.

Gary Corbett, President of the federal union representing slaughterhouse veterinarians stated the following in the Toronto Star piece in regard to the EID system:

"(Veterinarians) do rely a lot on the records of the horses kept by the owners coming into the country and there are questions about how accurate or up to date they are. It's at the discretion of the owner. There's no regulatory framework to monitor it. It's kind of like an honour system."

The Star also confirmed that: "While there have been investigation of the 4 plants between 2000 and 2011, there have been no prosecutions, said a CFIA spokesperson."

Finally, John Holland, President, Equine Welfare Alliance, summarized the view of many that "Canada has had a very negative turn in the way people view them on animal issues because of this. Canada is seen as an opportunist in the way it has filled its plants with these animals after the U.S. closed its doors to the practice.

Warning: The written report and accompanying videos contain graphic and disturbing content. Discretion is advised.To view the written report please click here.

To view the written report click here.
For those visitors who have trouble opening this file in their browser, please right click on the link and save to your computer and open from there.

Due to the massive amount of material uncovered in this investigation, we are presenting only a summary of some of the worst killings from the two days. An in-depth report will be released at a later date.

Dr. Nicholas Dodman's report can be viewed here.

Photo Journey

For further inquiries please contact:

Sinikka Crosland

Executive Director

Tel: 250.768.4803

info@defendhorsescanada.org

Twyla Francois
Central Region Director
Tel: 204.296.1375
twyla.1@mts.net

November 2011

Canadian Horse Defence Coalition
150 First Street
P.O. Box 21079
Orangeville, ON L9W 4S7

"Help us lead Canada's horses away from barbarism . . and into the protected pastures of a civilized nation."

Handful of Legislators Condemn Our Horses to USDA Approved Abuse With OUR TAX MONEY

2011-11-15T20:35:00.001-05:00

AWI Press Release: Handful of Legislators Condemn Horses to USDA Approved Abuse

Jack Kingston

Washington, D.C. (November 15, 2011) – It would appear that some in Congress are all talk when it comes to seriously reducing federal spending and decreasing the size of government. Despite overwhelming objections from the American public and the horse community, and despite Congress’ own supposed belief in fiscal restraint, the fate of America’s horses was undermined by three Members of Congress and their staffs behind closed doors this week. For years, an amendment to the annual Agriculture Appropriations bill has prevented tax dollars from being used to “inspect” horse slaughter facilities in the U.S. The House of Representatives voted this year to again include it in the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill, but three members of the Conference Committee, Representative Jack Kingston,

Herb Kohl

Roy Blunt

Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), and Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) , removed it from the final bill. A fourth member of the Conference Committee,

Representative Sam Farr (D-CA), was the lone objector.

Sam Farr

“I have been in Washington for a long time and this move baffles me. Both parties talked about making the hard cuts in federal spending and yet behind closed doors, three of the four men thought it was a good use of taxpayer dollars to ignore their colleagues and restore a federal program that will cost Americans at least $5 million a year and pull limited USDA inspectors from ensuring the humane treatment and safety of our nation’s food supply. To make matters worse, this was all done to appease a few foreign companies and Big Ag,” said Chris Heyde, deputy director of AWI’s government and legal affairs department. “This action shows the true nature of some elected officials—that they are more concerned about helping special interests than doing what they were elected to do.”

Some legislators are trying to disguise what they did as helping the horses, but there is substantial evidence of horses suffering at taxpayers’ expense when slaughter was permitted in the U.S. While a recent GAO report attempted to connect an increase in abuse to a cessation of horse slaughter in the U.S., the authors noted that there was no actual proof other than claims put forward by pro-horse slaughter proponents.

With this cynical move, there is now only one avenue left for ending the tragedy of the slaughter of horses for human consumption: Swift action on the GAO’s other recommendation—passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

“AWI commends Representative Farr (D-CA), ranking member of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, for being the sole member of the Conference Committee to stand up for America’s horses and fiscal responsibility,” noted Heyde. “We look forward to working with Representative Farr and other Members of Congress on passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.”

The Animal Welfare Institute is calling on everyone who has horses and cares about the welfare of America’s horses to demand that Congress pass the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act immediately.

Advantages of horse ownership discussed at Ranch Management University

2011-11-05T13:43:00.001-04:00

Advantages of horse ownership discussed at Ranch Management University - North Texas e-News

By Blair Fannin, Texas A&M
Oct 30, 2011
Print this page Email this article
COLLEGE STATION – Most ranch owners don’t realize the significant impact horse ownership and its contributions have on the Texas economy, according to an equine specialist.

The Texas horse industry has a statewide economic impact of more than $5.2 billion a year, said Dr. Clay Cavinder, an assistant professor of equine science at Texas A&M University.

Cavinder was one of several speakers at the recent Ranch Management University at Texas A&M.
Dr. Clay Cavinder

Dr. Clay Cavinder, assistant professor of equine science at Texas A&M University, discusses horse ownership at the recent Ranch Management University program. (Texas AgriLife Extension Service photo by Blair Fannin)

“Ranch Management University provides a foundation of knowledge for those who are new to owning land in Texas,” said Dr. Larry Redmon, workshop coordinator and Texas AgriLife Extension Service state forage specialist.

The program features numerous experts in specific disciplines from AgriLife Extension, Texas AgriLife Research and faculty from the department of animal science at Texas A&M.

“Horses are valued at $4.2 billion just in the state of Texas,” Cavinder said. “In terms of comparison with other industries and their effect on the GDP, we are on the same level as the motion picture industry, apparel manufacturing and tobacco industry. So, the horse industry brings a lot to the table.”

Annual expenses are roughly $2,300 for the horse owner when calculating feed, health and other requirements, Cavinder said.

Trail riding, one of the more popular activities, has many benefits with regards to physical fitness, family participation, as well as an emotional outlet for disabled individuals.

Cavinder said individuals also enjoy ‘horse chores’ such as cleaning stalls and use it as an emotional outlet.

A majority of horses now are owned for recreational purposes; most horse owners are not from a rural background.

“In the 1930s, the horse population declined due to the advent of the automobile,” Cavinder said. “Today, the horse population is going back up. People are owning horses for the sheer fun of it. There are a lot of 20-year-olds that grew up having horses, but their parents weren’t that involved with it. Their grandparents were likely more active in it.”

Horse ownership carries with it benefits, as well as responsibilities, he said. Food, water and shelter are three basic responsibilities of horse ownership, according to Cavinder. Nutrition is the largest annual maintenance expense for the horse and is also one of the most neglected aspects of horse care.

The digestive system of a horse is that of an animal that was created to run and move and eat roughage.

“Colic is the No. 1 killer of a horse,” Cavinder said. “Because it can’t vomit, it creates a different set of problems here (that can lead to colic). We do not want to create a digestive upset.

“Because we’re feeding horses concentrate diets, we do have to consider a few special things like distances and time between feeding. If you feed at seven in the morning, feed at seven at night. If you look at the statistics, there’s millions of dollars spent on treating colic.”

Cavinder said a set, routine feeding time each day will help prevent digestive problems.

Horses don’t have gall bladders, which in humans emulsify fat, so they can’t be fed low quality forage, Cavinder said.

“This is why we have to feed nice, high quality feed or hay. A horse doesn’t have the ability to break down and utilize roughage that is very high in structural carbohydrates.”

Cavinder advises rotating grazing of pastures to allow plants to grow before grazing.

“Wait until the forage reaches 3 to 4 inches, then clip the pasture for growth,” he said. “If a pasture gets to the point where there isn’t forage, then throw hay out there.”

Cavinder also advises monitoring horses in the barn and observing their behavior for signs of sickness.

“I always tell students when walking through the barn, don’t neglect to look at other horses,” he said. “When they are sick, they look depressed. They’ll have their ears drooped back and head down.”

Registration is already being taken for the next Ranch Management University program scheduled April 9-13. For information, visit https://agriliferegister.tamu.edu/ and enter “Ranch Management” as the keywords.

Texas A&M Transport Violations: Deluxe Transport to Slaughter But Horse Found Dead

2011-10-30T11:26:00.001-04:00

Texas A & M fined for transport violations: Deluxe transport to slaughter but horse found dead

AA has gained information through a Freedom of information Act Request (FOIA) that powerfully underscores the cruelty of horse slaughter on U.S. soil. Under the most ideal conditions possible - including watering stops during single-deck transport, less packed conditions and multiple cameras with a team of monitors - a horse died in the bottom of a trailer during transport. The study adds to ever increasing evidence that demonstrates horse slaughter cannot be 'improved' into something that is humane.

Truck & trailer used for transport

The subject of the FOIA is a graduate program study orchestrated by Texas A&M University veterinary professor Dr. Ted H. Friend. The USDA paid for the study. A kill buyer was chosen and TX A&M transported his horses for free to the slaughter plant. The study was designed to 'improve' transport to slaughter by "relieving transport stress." Specifically, the study was to document the effect of providing water to horses in transport at 8 hour intervals.

In his statement, Dr. Friend said that 8 hours was, "the most frequent interval that we could reasonably expect truckers to stop to water horses." USDA regulations require checking all horses every six hours.

The researchers would also be taking blood samples to monitor stress levels in the horses. However, no blood sample was taken from the horse that later died.

Monte Clark of CO, a well known kill buyer, was the owner of the 26 horses. Texas A&M acted as shipper/transporter of the horses, moving them at no charge from Hudson, CO to Dallas Crown in Kaufman, TX.

Conditions were as ideal as possible. There had been several practice runs before the study began. A&M used a specially outfitted trailer with 12 video cameras, lighting and watering system.

There were 2 drivers instead of the usual 1 seen on most hauls, and 3 graduate students that followed the trailer to monitor the cameras and water the horses. The professor stated that "our densest compartment [of the trailer] could be increased by 60% and still be under what the USDA considers to be acceptable density."

Inside of trailer

As unlikely as it sounds, all involved stated that cameras and lighting in the trailer "malfunctioned" where the dead horse was, though the cameras in other parts of the trailer continued to work properly.

AA believes it is due the presence of a USDA APHIS inspector at the slaughter plant that documentation of the incident exists. He stated that he "overheard" a graduate student telling the plant manager a trailer with a dead horse had arrived. APHIS inspectors are responsible for enforcement of transport to slaughter regulations (9 CFR, Part 88).

In his affidavit it is the driver who most frankly describes the journey's start. He seems more in touch with the condition of horses as they were being loaded in CO than the 'experts', recalling,

"[S]ome horses had cuts above their eyes or cheeks. The horse that fell was one of our main concerns. He did not seem to be in too good of health. He was walking real slow and hair was fallen out. But [ the] owners son, if I am not mistaken said the horse would be alright for the trip....I may not know too much about horses, but I myself know when one is not in good health...."

Dead horse

Graduate student 1 seemed far less concerned with any horses' welfare. In his affidavit he states Clark let him select additional horses from his "cripples pen", choosing the "healthiest soundest looking horses." However, as they began loading he sees the horse that would die in transport urinate, "the urine looked highly saturated with blood." The student said that later 'Monty' commented that the horse was "going to the right place." The student also states that after they arrived at Dallas Crown and found the dead horse, he told Chris the manager; "He did not seem surprised so I assumed this was a fairly common occurrence."

Student 1 ends his affidavit by saying, "Many of the horses transported to slaughter look pretty bad and this one [the horse that died] did not look any worse off than the majority. I know in the future we will not be transporting any horses that have blood in their urine."

A second graduate student gave an affidavit and also describes the pen of horses with "lower limb deformities". He remembers that the palomino gelding in question had "abnormally long, curly hair" and "appeared lethargic". However, neither of the graduate students in veterinary medicine hesitated when the decision was made to load this horse.

Slaughter Tag

The trip took approx. 18 hours with one stop for watering the horses in Amarillo. Temperatures inside the trailer reached 97 degrees. Texas A & M was later fined $2,000 for failure to "at least once every six hours check on the physical conditions of all horses," and for incomplete owner/shipper certifications showing any prior conditions of the horse that arrived dead.

During the stop in Amarillo, the students monitoring the cameras stated they were having problems with the lighting system of the trailer and did not notice any horses down in the trailer.

According to the APHIS inspector's affidavit, he "did not ask if there was any [video] tape of the horses or the dead horse" received that day. No explanation was provided. Nobody took blood samples from the dead horse.

Conclusion:

A university study with watering stops, lower loading density and video camera monitoring, select horses, yet still a horse dies during transport - How bad is the reality of typical transport to slaughter with nothing that approaches such luxuries? These transports were planned for months, test runs were conducted at the university and graduate students in veterinary medicine were monitoring the horses' welfare en route.

Still this poor horse died a grim death. According to Monte Clark, the palomino was, "going to the right place." No doubt giving horses water is an improvement, but does it make horse slaughter humane? According to every bit of evidence Animals' Angels has gathered since 2006, the answer is unquestionably No.

This is from Animals' Angels the famed international animal welfare organization that gets the story. Follow this link to their web site to find many more stories just as shocking as this one. This is a wonderful organization to help if you possibly can.

Mr President, You Promised!

2011-10-28T12:22:00.002-04:00

During the 2008 campaign President Obama said, “Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect…. I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected.” President Obama announced that he had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. During the 2008 campaign President Obama signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, “Will you support legislation …to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption“, President Obama gave an unqualified “Yes“. (HSLF questionnaire)

Now is the time for President Obama to keep that campaign promise. The supporters of this predatory, cruel and inhumane practice of slaughtering horses have wrapped their arguments up with the flag, motherhood and apple pie. They have lobbied extensively for the return of slaughter to the U.S. and the continued exports of equines for slaughter for human consumption. They even controlled a June, 2011 GAO report which has been refuted as based on misinformation, unsupported opinions and untruths. Go here and here.

PLEASE SEND THE FOLLOWING LETTER, PROVIDED BY ANIMAL LAW COALITION and EQUINE WELFARE ALLIANCE To President Obama, Your Senators and Your Representatives. All Contact Information is provided at the bottom of the letter.

LETTER:

Signatures of more than 6,000 Americans on a White House petition to ban the slaughter of equines for human consumption have been presented to the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration told us that if we gathered 5,000 signatures on a White House petition, the issue would receive consideration. We actually collected 5,000 signatures very quickly, at least 2 weeks before opponents were able to gather the same number of signatures for a petition started earlier to revive horse slaughter in the U.S. Of the 4 petitions created by mid-October regarding horses, the slaughter ban has collected the most signatures.

Thousands more Americans have sent letters directly to the White House over the past 3 years and still more have directed letters to their senators and representatives in Congress in an effort to end equine slaughter for human consumption.

We know from a 2006 Public Opinion Strategies poll that nearly 70% of Americans support a ban on equine slaughter. A CNN poll that same year showed a similar result. The support among Americans for a ban on equine slaughter for human consumption has grown: Currently, according to the Popvox poll, 77% of Americans support pending legislation, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, H.R. 2966/S.B. 1176, which would end the slaughter of American equines for human consumption.

I hope the Obama Administration will see this issue as paramount to human health and safety. It is also about saving communities from a predatory and environmentally and economically devastating practice. It is about stopping terrible cruelty and suffering of animals who are our companions and pets; they helped build this country and still work in the military and law enforcement and provide therapy as well as entertainment in horse racing, shows and other sports and exhibitions. They are not raised for food.

During the 2008 campaign you (President Obama) said, “Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect…. I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected.” You (President Obama) announced that you had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. During the 2008 campaign you (President Obama) signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, “Will you support legislation …to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption“, you (President Obama) gave an unqualified “Yes“. (HSLF questionnaire)

Now is the time to keep that campaign promise, Mr. President. The supporters of this predatory, cruel and inhumane practice of slaughtering horses have wrapped their arguments up with the flag, motherhood and apple pie. They have lobbied extensively for the return of slaughter to the U.S. and the continued exports of equines for slaughter for human consumption. They even controlled a June, 2011 GAO report which has been refuted as based on misinformation, unsupported opinions and untruths. Go here and here.

The urgent reasons to ban equine slaughter have not changed, however, since you, (President Obama) as Senator signed on as co-sponsor of anti-slaughter legislation:

1. The FDA does not regulate equines as food animals. Americans don’t eat horses and other equines. American horses are not raised, fed and medicated within the FDA guidelines established for food animals, making them unfit and unsafe for human consumption. Equines are given all manner of drugs, steroids, de-wormers and ointments throughout their lives. Equines are not tracked and typically may have several owners. A kill buyer has no idea of the veterinary or drug history of a horse or other equine taken to slaughter, and many of the most dangerous drugs have no or a very long withdrawal period. A typical drug given routinely to equines like aspirin, phenylbutazone or Bute, is a carcinogen and can cause aplastic anemia in humans. It has no withdrawal period. The FDA bans bute in all food producing animals because of this serious danger to human health. The FDA and USDA would prohibit Americans from consuming horses because of this danger. Yet, neither the FDA nor the USDA prohibits the export of American horses for slaughter for human consumption. It is a grave risk to public health to continue to allow the export of American horses for slaughter for human consumption in other countries.

2. Equine slaughter has been devastating to the communities where slaughtering facilities have been located, with significant negative impacts including nuisance odors that permeated the surrounding towns to chronic sewer and environmental violations. Blood literally ran in the streets and waste from the facilities clogged sewers and piled up everywhere. This predatory practice produced few very low wage jobs, meaning workers and their families overran local resources like the hospitals and government services. This so called business brought in virtually no tax revenues and local governments incurred substantial enforcement costs in trying to regulate these facilities. The standard of living in these communities dropped during the time horse slaughter facilities operated. Good businesses refused to relocate there. As Paula Bacon, mayor of Kaufman, Texas during the time a horse facility operated there until 2007 said, “My community did not benefit. We paid.”

Recently, when officials in Hardin, Montana learned of a plan to build horse facilities in that state, the town council immediately unanimously passed Ordinance No. 2010-01 that prohibits the slaughter of more than 25 animals in a seven day period. The message is clear: Americans don’t want equine slaughter.

Equine slaughter has also been found to increase and abet horse theft in areas where facilities are located or horses are held for transport to slaughter.

3. Horse slaughter is not a means of controlling numbers of so-called unwanted, abandoned or neglected horses, but, rather, is a for-profit operation driven by a demand for horsemeat in some foreign countries. The USDA has confirmed more than 92% of horses that end up at slaughter are healthy; they are not unwanted, neglected or abused. Kill buyers are interested in buying the healthiest horses for horsemeat which is sold as a delicacy in some foreign countries.

The rise in numbers of horses in need and drop in horse prices is a result of the worst recession in memory. In fact, if slaughter controlled numbers of horses in need, there would be none as slaughter is still available and horses are sent to slaughter in the same numbers as before the 2007 closings of the slaughter houses that were located in the U.S. In fact, the availability of slaughter actually increases the numbers of excess horses and other equines on the market. Slaughter creates a salvage or secondary market that encourages overbreeding and adds to the problem of horses in need. Banning slaughter would reduce the number of excess horses and other equines.

Also, slaughter accounts for only about 3 cents for every $100 of the equine industry. It is absurd for anyone to suggest a limited salvage market could influence prices in the entire horse industry.

4. America’s iconic wild horses and burros which are supposed to be legally protected on public lands under the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act, have been illegally sent to slaughter, and, indeed, a Justice Department investigation has been launched to try to stop this. A ban on exports of horses and burros for slaughter for human consumption would greatly assist in the enforcement of this Act.

5. Equine slaughter is not humane euthanasia. The slaughter of horses and other equines simply cannot be made humane: Dr. Lester Friedlander, DVM & former Chief USDA Inspector, told Congress in 2008 that the captive bolt used to slaughter horses is simply not effective. Horses and other equines, in particular, are very sensitive about anything coming towards their heads and cannot be restrained as required for effective stunning. Dr. Friedlander stated, “These animals regain consciousness 30 seconds after being struck, they are fully aware they are being vivisected.” The Government Accountability Office and dozens of veterinarians and other witnesses have confirmed that ineffective stunning is common and animals are conscious during slaughter. It is simply not possible for USDA/APHIS to make equine slaughter humane and it is a myth to pretend otherwise.

6. The 2011 GAO report confirmed that USDA/APHIS has not – and cannot – enforce humane transport regulations for equines sent to slaughter. Changing a few words here and there in the regulations will not change this. USDA/APHIS allows the kill buyers and haulers to fill out and provide the documentation – which is routinely missing, incomplete or inaccurate – relied on for enforcement. It is impossible to enforce regulations when the information to determine violations is supplied by those USDA/APHIS is supposed to be regulating.

7. Equines are in danger and equine welfare is threatened as long as slaughter remains available, and only a federal law can stop exports of equines for slaughter for human consumption.

I would like to urge President Obama to keep that 2008 campaign promise and support the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, H.R. 2966/S.B. 1176, and am also asking My Senators and Federal Representative to CO-SPONSOR and Vote YES on H.R.2966 and S.B.1176. Thank you.

Sincerely,

(Your Name)

CONTACT INFORMATION

CLICK HERE FOR THE CONTACT FORM FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND COPY AND PASTE THE ABOVE LETTER INTO THE COMMENTS BOX.

CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR SENATOR’S AND REPRESENTATIVE’S EMAIL ADDRESS.

CLICK HERE TO SEND FREE FAXES TO YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES. Faxes are sent from your computer. You do not need a Fax Machine. You do not need a Credit Card.

PLEASE SEND YOUR EMAILS NOW ON BEHALF OF THE HORSES OF AMERICA.

Add caption

USDA Picture of One Transport Violation at Beltex Corp. in Ft. Worth Texas 2005

2011-10-20T12:02:00.001-04:00

USDA picture of transport violations of Beltex Corp. in Fort Worth, Texas in 2005. There are 899 more pictures from Beltex just like this one. Is this your idea of humane? Picture obtained under FOIA request.

via TweetDeck

Action Alert! Observations and Opinions of a Horse Killer (Parts 1 & 2)

2011-10-17T11:04:00.000-04:00

These videos are interviews of a horse killer, who for decades, bought and shipped horses to slaughter for human consumption. He and his associates also rounded up Wild Horses for slaughter.

After leaving the business, his conclusion was that the entire industry was inhumane, cruel, lacking in transparency and with a profit margin was so small that it could never be regulated to be humane by any standards.That this was a business that was good for neither people nor horses.

In a word, exactly what we have been saying for 30 years. We have enough documentation to sink the Titanic, but somehow that is overlooked in favor the anti-slaughter disinformation - for which there is no documentation - that is parroted by the pro-slaughter horse registries like the AQHA and the Jockey Club and Big Agriculture as if ending horse slaughter for human consumption could somehow affect them.

I personally find it impossible to believe the entire animal/Ag industries can actually believe the scare tactics of the queen of slaughter mouthpieces, Ms. Sue Wallis and the so-called "United Horsemen" when they claim that we all are "animal rights radicals" bent on closing down all animal Ag and are paid by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and PETA. This is just too idiotic for words and I don't believe this "slippery slope" junk is actually taken seriously by Big Ag. However, it's a convenient excuse for whatever it is they are really afraid of - whatever that may be - and, who knows, it might be true, right?

Actually, no, it can't be true - not even close. But - for whatever reason - they seem to be willing to risk not only horrific cruelty to our horses, the health of consumers overseas eating the meat from a non-regulated non-food animal.They even seem to be willing to severely damage the credibility of our food safety regulations, and, in fact, our entire meat industry. If they can champion the continued export of horse meat that is tainted with numerous substances - phenylbutazone (bute) being the most widely known - without blinking an eye, why should we believe they would feel entirely differently about other contaminated meat products? I'm a confirmed beef eater, but anyone would have to wonder. Frankly, I find it shocking.

Even more shocking is the way these Deep Pockets industries can manipulate Congress to the point that they have been able to block any anti-slaughter legislation for years with no reasonable reason. When a small minority of the people in the horse industry can influence the animal/Ag industry to use their might to block the will of the great majority of Americans who consider the continuation of horse slaughter for human consumption - and that's what we're talking about here, human consumption - a disgrace, well, Houston, we have a problem.

Part 1

Part 2

I ask you in the strongest possible terms to send these videos not only to your own Congress people, but also to the leadership of both the House and Senate and the ranking members of the Committees where both S. 1176 in the Senate and H.R. 2966 are now sitting - and where they will stay, blocked like all the bills before them unless we let Congress know that 80% of the American people want horse slaughter for human consumption stopped and stopped now. Contact these people in Congress and continue to contact them about this issue. Our opponents may be a minority, but they are well organized and well funded. For all the info you need go to: POPVOX.com

We however do have an huge advantage that the horse bleeders will never even understand. They are doing what they are doing for profit. We are doing what we are doing for our horses. And that makes all the difference in the world.

I Wouldn't Ask You To Sign a Laundry Slip

2011-10-10T14:36:00.001-04:00

This was written by a poster on the "United Horsemen" Face Book page. It's a perfect example of the ridiculous, ignorant and plain silly the pro-slaughter contingent can be. Of course, anyone who would send any horse to slaughter is ignorant and best and evil at worst.
I will now answer this post lie by lie - from experience.
This was posted by X, who is one of the newest contributors to our UHO FB team.
A few of use have been attaching it to the petition when we share it and it's getting
a lot of response.
To those that have asked Me to sign a Petition for the end of Horse Slaughter.
You may disagree with Me, and that's OK....You can delete me if You feel I'm not
"with you"....I'm an American, a...nd Men have died so that I have the right to
My Opinion, and the Right to express My Opinion.
I love the Horse too much to agree with the deplorable Conditions that these Honorable
Animals are forced to endure at the Hands of UN-Regulated, Haulers, and Butchers,
across our Borders.
Then get yourself educated about the many, many available solutions other than slaughter. But you won't do that - none of you who are so concerned about our horses can ever even suggest anything but kill, kill, kill! I would think that anyone who is so concerned could come up with at least one other option. If they wanted any other option, that is. And, for your information, the plants in Canada and the EU certified plants in Mexico are just as "humane" as ours ever were.
It was More Honorable, that they WERE Humanely Euthanized, by USDA REGULATED Processors,
in the USA.
I guarantee here and now that you have never stepped foot in a horse slaughter plant anywhere. Well, I have. I was at Dallas Crown in Kaufman, Texas when I lived in Dallas and was looking for stolen horses that belonged to three of my friends. I still do not like to discuss what we saw there and this was back in 1992. The screaming of the horses was bad enough. I wouldn't have to have seen anything. But I did see. I saw a horse in the kill box fighting frantically to avoid the captive-bolt. I saw another shot miss and hit him/her in the face. I couldn't look any more. The screaming continued as long as we were there. That was a USDA regulated plant in the USA. It was not euthanasia. It was not humane. It was Hell on Earth! And you are an irresponsible, sad excuse for a human being for not listening to people who have been there! By her own admission your heroine Sue Wallis has never been inside a horse slaughter plant.
Facts:
Your NOT going to stop the International Processing of Horses Commercially!
You know something, baby. We don't even have to. If we don't stop it ourselves, the European Union will stop it for us. They know our horses are tainted with banned substances. They know the killers are forging affidavits saying the horses are free of drugs because they caught them in an inspection of EU regulated plants in Mexico. They also rejected 30% of US horses in a feedlot this side of the border because they were unfit to haul. Oh, they know what's happening. They are the ones eating this meat.
Right now, Canada and Mexico are implementing the passport system so they can continue to sell horse meat to the EU. By 2013, horses coming from any 3rd country - like us - must be on a comparable program or they will not be accepted for slaughter by anyone. That is, if the EU doesn't just ban them altogether before that because of the idiots who are trying to insist that bute can ever be safe. Rave on. The sooner the ban, the better.
You can NOT convince the rest of the World to stop eating Horse Meat!
I couldn't care less what the rest of the world eats. They can eat all the horse meat they want as long as they eat their own horses and not mine. Besides, they have a traceability system called the passport system where every horse is tracked from birth as to what drugs he/she has been exposed to and when. If a horse is exposed to a banned substance - bute, for instance - there is a place on the passport to sign that will permanently remove that horse from the human food chain. One bute and they are no longer eligible for slaughter for human consumption. That's what we've been trying pound into your rock heads.
We on the other hand have absolutely no way to trace what a horse has been exposed to or when he/she was exposed to it. So, even for drugs that have a withdrawal period, we have no way of knowing if the proper interval has passed or not. That's why our horses are unfit for humans to eat
We as Americans CHOOSE, not to Eat Horse Meat, thats OUR Choice.
You've got a better chance convincing Muslims, to throw away the Koran.
I'm not really sure what the heck your point is here. I agree that as Americans we choose not to eat horse meat and it damn well is our choice. That doesn't mean we're trying to stop others from eating it though.
You HAVE created the worst economic Impact of the Horse on the US Economy in History.
You HAVE created a situation, of MILLIONS of un-wanted Horses being dumped, and
neglected of Veterinary Care, and the basics of Nutrition, because a Horse that
was worth $5,000. in 2007, is now worth $500., and the Basic Care of a that Horse
is more, than the Horse is monetarily worth.
How old are you? 12 maybe. From all your errors in spelling and syntax maybe younger than that. Or maybe you're just as uneducated about everything else as you are about economics. The greatest recession since the Great Depression and the Big Breeders breed just as many horses as before - great business model! Any producer with any brains knows that in a recession you cut production - especially when you have inventory from the previous year which you cannot sell - and wait it out. Economics 101. But not horse breeders. After years of telling us that horse business is a business just like any other, they want very special treatment - a disposal service that even pays them! What a deal! Sorry, but it don't work that way, kiddo.

And, by the way, some of us don't judge the worth of a horse by his/her "monetary worth" I paid $3,500 for my horse back in 2002, and you know what? I don't care what he would sell for now because I wouldn't sell him for $1,000,000. Especially to someone who was going to butcher him. There are millions of people who can't sell their homes for enough to pay off their mortgages. Is the closing of domestic horse slaughter plants responsible for that too? Makes just as much sense.
Your Cause was Honorable, but the Decision You made to Stop US Horse Processing
Commercialy, has backfired, and You have caused more Damage, than You can possibly
imagine, for the HORSE, the Creature that You believe you are Championing!.
You are nuts. No one made you Stop US Horse Processing Commercialy. Good grief! As I have said, we are shipping just as many - if not more - horses to slaughter now than we did when the domestic plants were open. At least that's what the GAO Report said. So, you might want to retract that statement because everyone know it's not true.
You didn't hurt Me, You have sent everyone of those Animals to an absolutley worse
HORRID Death.
No, babe, you and your kind have sent thousands and thousands of our horses to the most horrid death imaginable - first in our slaughter plants and now in the slaughter plants of Canada and Mexico. By the way, we always sent horses to slaughter in Canada and Mexico, even when the domestic plants were open. It's nothing new. You didn't even know that. You've never seen a horse slaughter plant anywhere, yet you scream and holler to send other people's horses there. You've never loved a horse. You don't even know what love means or you would be looking toward anything but slaughter. Instead, you refuse to look at anything but slaughter. You're disgusting.
If You want to make a difference for this Magestic Animal, from Your Urban Apartment,
Vote to Get American Slaughter Houses back open, shut down the exporters, and and got
to work for the USDA, as an Inspector, and Regulate the HUMANE Slaughter of Horses,
in the USA.
Just when you think this post cannot get any more ridiculous, it does.Who the hell do you think you are so state categorically that everyone who opposes horse slaughter lives in an urban apartment? That alone proves what liars you all are. I was born in Dallas, but I never lived in an apartment anywhere. Yes, for my first 15 years of horse ownership I had to board my horse. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to board a horse in a trustworthy stable? Most of the other boarders were just like me - working full time and spending almost every dime of our disposable income - and often more - to keep our horses. None of us minded because we loved our horses and considered the cost more than worth it. Among these people were the friends whose horses were stolen that fateful night. You pros think about that, will you, for just a moment? These were not unwanted, neglected or abused horses. They were much loved pets whose owners would sacrifice anything for their welfare. And that's where many, many slaughter horses come from. Did you think they all came from auctions? And even there, a lot of people are so naive they believe their young, healthy horses will find good homes at auctions. I totally and completely blame your pro-slaughter lies for fostering the idea that killers buy old, sick, crippled horses and the good horses go to good homes. You idiots! The killers grab all the good horses because they are going to sell them for humans to eat. You don't really believe they buy old, sick, crippled horses for that purpose do you? Surely not! They don't buy those horses
I became so frightened that my horse would be stolen next after they took my friends' horses that my husband and I took our horse and moved to his native Indiana. Now, I live on a farm and can afford to have more than one horse. I only have two though, because that's as many as I can afford to give the kind of care - during and at the end of their lives - that I want them to have and that they deserve. If something happens to me, I have someone I trust who will take them. It still worries me sick that without me they will somehow fall into the slaughter pipeline though. Thanks to people like you, responsible horse owners haven't been able to draw an easy breath in a generation. Thanks SO MUCH.
If You don't believe me, simply "Google" Mexican Horse Slaughter, I won't post the
Videos on FB...too Graphic, and it pisses Me off, that these same Liberal Americans,
are EXACTLY the ones reponsible for the deplorable demise of this Creature, in transit,
and at our Borders.
I don't have to "Google" anything, honey. I have DVDs full of pictures - nine hundred pictures - obtained via FOIA from the USDA showing of violations at Beltex in Ft. Worth from January 1, 2005 - November 17, 2005. I'm not going to post them either, but you can see them in all their gory glory at http://kaufmanzoning.com And, while you're there, you might want to notice the opinions of those who had to live with this monstrosity.
Don't be pissed at the Mexicans, and Canadians, be pissed at Yourself...YOU Liberal
Americans did this to the Horse.
Lamb Chop, the only persons I'm pissed at are you and your horse blood-sucking, money grubbing buddies who would sell out your horses for a damn dime.
The Horse deserves better than what You have done, and You should be ashamed of
Yourself.
Yes, the horses deserve better and we'll get if for them, unless the EU has to do it for us - which they will. Have you ever considered what you are doing to the reputation of legitimate, follow-the-rules livestock/Ag producers? No, you haven't. Many people - and not just overseas - are beginning to question our entire meat industry. I can't blame them after seeing the meat industry and cattlemen support the exporting of meat that they If a person loudly supports toxic horse meat, why would they be trustworthy about toxic beef. Toxic meat is toxic meat after all. I am . I'm only stating what's going through my mind, and that of others. I'm from Texas after all. I always believed our Cattlemen were totally on the up-and-up. But, after their rabid support of horse slaughter all of a sudden - they were against it when they had that law passed in Texas banning it. You know, the law that shut down the plants in Texas? Who do you think that law came from? Now, the cattlemen want the plants reopened that their law shut down. What changed? Something did. Was it quality control, or... what?
Again, I love the Horse too much to sign Your Petition.
I never asked you to sign anything. I knew you were too ignorant. And I also know that you never loved a horse in your entire life. If you had, you would search for any answer except slaughter. You know, it's not illegal except in a couple of states to slaughter and eat your own horse. Why don't you toddle on off and do that and leave other people's horses alone.

2011.10.09 White House Petition to Ban Slaughter

2011-10-09T23:17:00.001-04:00

We did it! 5,000 signatures! To all who signed and shared - THANK YOU!

via campaign.r20.constantcontact.com

Author of Bute Article Blasts Wallis’ Letter as “Nonsense” | Horse Back Magazine

2011-10-06T00:00:00.001-04:00

As promised, here is Dr. Marini with her response to the ridiculous article from Slaughterhouse Sue Wallis and her merry band of horse eaters. If I were Dr. Marini, I would sue. I mean, enough is enough, and this is off the charts.

Pursuing a political agenda is one thing, but having "experts" with no relevant credentials at all challenge not only Dr. Marini and her co-authors, but the FDA, USDA and the European Union Commission on Food Safety is quite another. This is a very serious subject, and one that should end any speculation on the ethics - or lack thereof - of Sue Wallis and the "United Horsemen." I don't know if they are truly "united," but they certainly are not Horsemen.

Author of Bute Article Blasts Wallis’ Letter as “Nonsense”
October 5, 2011
By Steven Long
HOUSTON, (Horseback) – The chief author of a landmark paper published in a prestigious medical journal has spoken out offering a definitive defense of the document. Dr. Ann Marini, PhD., M.D. called a letter published by a pro horse slaughter group, United Horsemen, “nonsense.”
At issues is paper titled, “Association of Phenylbutazone (Bute) Usage with Horses Bought for Slaughter” and was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology authored by Marini and Nicolas Dodman, a veterinary anesthesiologist at Tufts University, Nicolas Blondeau, The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology (France) and Dr. Marini, of the faculty of the Bethesda, MD. based Department of Neurology, Uniformed University of the Health Sciences, operated by the U.S. Department of Defense.
The critics are all equine science instructors from the agriculture departments of three small colleges and universities. They are William Day, PhD of Morristown State College, Sheryl King PhD, PAS, of Southern Illinois State University, Don Henneke, PhD of Tarlton State University, and Pat Evans EdD of Scottsdale Community College.
The letter was distributed by a second term state representative from a rural village who claims to represent the entire horse industry. Rep. Sue Wallis (R) of Recluse, WY (pop 13), is the nation’s most outspoken proponent of reopening U.S. horse slaughter plants, shut down after Congress refused to fund federal meat inspectors in such facilities, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear challenges to state laws in Texas and Illinois outlawing them.
“None of them have a medical background, and it seems clear they don’t understand drug disposition, metabolism and excretion ,” Dr. Marini said in an exclusive interview with Horseback Magazine. “There is a certain amount of every drug that is ingested that remains in the body.”
Marini cited long ago research that led to a total ban of the use of phenylbutazone (bute) in all food animals. The findings showed that “patients were taking phenylbutazone and developed agranulocytosis and aplastic anemia and died,” Marini said. “This is the basis of why the FDA banned pnenylbutazone in all food animals including horses.”
“It is a carcinogen that causes cancer in lab animals and also causes a liver hypersensitivity syndrome that’s fatal,” she told Horseback. “Bute is shown to produce serum sickness like syndrome that results in fever, fatigue, malaise, and inflammation of the kidney, swollen glands, and an enlarged spleen. A person can end up on dialysis for the rest of their life.”
“Drug residues in horsemeat that is ingested may be enough for people to develop these illnesses,” Marini said.
The physician also pointed to a recent article in an Irish journal showing a relationship to the development of aplastic anemia in children.
“This is an idiosyncratic disorder,” she said. “No one can predict who is going to develop the disease. The letter is really nonsense. That is the reason the FDA bans bute in all food producing animals including horses.”

via horsebackmagazine.com

Bute_and_Slaughter_Horses_Toxicology_Study.pdf Download this file

Bute_and_the_Passport_System.pdf Download this file

Wyoming Politician Challenges Bute Findings by Medical and Veterinary Experts | Horse Back Magazine

2011-10-05T21:52:00.001-04:00

I really don't know what else I can add to this. Every day I marvel anew at the depth Sue Wallis and her sock puppets will sink to in order to be able to brutally slaughter our horses for Europeans to eat.

Of course this ridiculous drivel from so-called "experts" who are not medical nor veterinary experts will be laughed off by anyone who knows anything. As it turns out just a little background research on two of the equine “scientists” and their objectivity in regard to the safety of bute in horses slaughtered for human consumption…

Dr. (of Education) Pat Evans is a founding member - along with Ms Wallis - of United Organizations of the Horse (see http://whohateshorses.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/boycott-the-leaders-of-horse-slaughter-summit-organizers-a-little-history/). While teaching at Utah State, she co-wrote a paper titled “The State of the Horse Industry Since the Closing of the Horse Harvesting (sic) Facilities” (see http://www.animalwelfarecouncil.com/html/pdf/utahstate.pdf).
Dr. (of what subject, I can’t determine) Sheryl King was named head of the Illinois Horse Council in Feb. 2011 (http://www.horsemenscouncil.org/HCI/NewsReleases/11Feb04.php) and defends slaughter as beneficial to horses and the horse industry. For instance, see page 15 of “Equine Monthly”, Apr. 2007 (http://www.equinemonthly.com/web/ha_2arc407.pdf), for King’s statement on Illinois HB 1711 amending the Illinois Horse Meat Act. In “The Lincoln Trail Riders Newsletter”, June 2004, Dr. King was quoted as writing the following:
“Dianne,
“The Senate Executive Committee voted for the anti-slaughter legislation by a wide margin. It immediately went to the floor of the Senate where it was also voted for by a large margin. Next it goes to the House floor for concurrence, and then to the governor for signature. I think both of these will happen.
“Unfortunately, the powerful and wealthy animal rights groups and the pet owners and city dwellers who do not understand the first thing about where their food comes from never mind the reality of animal agriculture or raising horses were very vocal and forceful.
“I fear that it will be the horses and the Illinois horse industry that will suffer. I really hope this is a wakeup call to horsemen to begin learning how to band together to fight against issues that will
be harmful to their interests. Unfortunately, we horsemen tend to be a very independent lot – I have my doubts whether we will ever be able to stick up for ourselves.
“Sheryl S. King, Ph.D.
Professor
Director of Equine Studies
Animal Science Department
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901″
And they had the nerve to claim the anti-slaughter advocates have a political agenda!
Don't go away. Dr, Marini has now made a comment, and it's a doozy. Next post.

Wyoming Politician Challenges Bute Findings by Medical and Veterinary Experts
October 5, 2011

By Steven Long
HOUSTON, (Horseback) – A second term state representative from a rural village who claims to represent the entire horse industry has challenged a peer reviewed article in a distinguished scientific journal citing a letter from three agricultural school equine science professors.
Rep. Sue Wallis (R) of Recluse, WY (pop 13), is the nation’s most outspoken proponent of reopening U.S. horse slaughter plants, shut down after Congress refused to fund federal meat inspectors in such facilities, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear challenges to state laws in Texas and Illinois outlawing them.
The paper titled, “Association of phenylbutazone (Bute) usage with horses bought for slaughter”: a public health risk states in its abstract:
“Sixty-seven million pounds of horsemeat derived from American horses were sent abroad for human consumption last year. Horses are not raised as food animals in the United States, and mechanisms to ensure the removal of horses treated with banned substances from the food chain are inadequate at best. Phenylbutazone (PBZ) is the most commonly used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) in equine practice. Thoroughbred (TB) race horses like other horse breeds are slaughtered for human consumption. Phenylbutazone is banned for use in any animal intended for human consumption because it causes serious and lethal idiosyncratic adverse effects in humans. The number of horses that have received phenylbutazone prior to being sent to slaughter for human consumption is unknown but its presence in some is highly likely. We identified eighteen TB race horses that were given PBZ on race day and sent for intended slaughter by matching their registered name to their race track drug record over a five year period. Sixteen rescued TB race horses were given PBZ on race day. Thus, PBZ residues may be present in some horsemeat derived from American horses. The permissive allowance of such horsemeat used for human consumption poses a serious public health risk.”
Wallis, in a press release cited a letter to the article’s publisher, Food and Chemical Toxicology by four agricultural school professors challenging the findings of its authors, Drs.
Nicolas Dodman, a veterinary anesthesiologist at Tufts University, Nicolas Blondeau, The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology (France), and Ann Marini, MD, PhD, of the Department of Neurology, Uniformed University of the Health Sciences.
The three experts changing the findings of Dodman, Blondeau, and Marini, are William Day, PhD of Morristown State College, Sheryl King PhD, PAS, of Southern Illinois State University, Don Henneke, PhD of Tarlton State University, and Pat Evans EdD of Scottsdale Community College. All are equine science instructors with no medical or veterinary training.
Marini was unavailable for comment.
The study’s critic also wrote a lengthy note to Congress blasting the study failed to mention that bute is prohibited by the federal Food and Drug Administration for use in all food animals.
Asked by Horseback Online how the three United Horsemen experts could challenge the paper with no medical training, Wallis replied, “By that reasoning the original article authors weren’t qualified to write it.”
Horseback then asked Wallis, “Why does England and the rest of Europe require horse passports and only horses raised for their meat enter the food chain for human consumption?”
There has been no response.
“They really cherry picked their facts,” said John Holland, president of the Chicago Based Equine Welfare Alliance which completed a three day Washington D.C. conference last week featuring some of the nation’s top equine welfare scientists, academics, and advocates including Dr. Marini.
“For example, they stated that ninety percent of PBZ disappears from the blood in just over a day,” Holland said. “They neglected to mention its metabolite oxyphenylbutazone which is just as dangerous and lasts much longer.”
More recently in an Irish veterinary journal, the metabolite issue is addressed as well.
“Sue’s experts also omitted the fact that PBZ takes up in injured tissue,” Holland said in a written response to Horseback Online. “And then they cited an industry recommendation that was never adopted as if it had some special credibility: The 2004 Proceedings of The United States Pharmacopeial Convention reported that evidence had been compiled by the Canadian FARAD leading to the recommendation of a withdrawal time of 60 days following administration of phenylbutazone paste to beef animals and a withholding time of 10 days in milk would be sufficient to avoid residues.”
Holland countered misrepresentation saying, “they claimed I am ‘associated with HSUS and linked to PETA.’ I have no linkage to PETA what-so-ever, and only a loose association with HSUS (as if that were a crime).”
“They ignored the standing rule that PBZ is banned in all meat animals with no withdrawal period and that it is only allowed in diary animals under six months of age in a few countries. In other words, they are trying to spin things to create doubt where there really isn’t any,” Holland said.

via horsebackmagazine.com

ACTION ALERT! Support The Ban On Horse Slaughter

2011-09-24T20:38:00.001-04:00

Everyone, this may be the most important thing you do for horses this year! This petition is a new venture launched by the White House, with the promise that if a petition can collect a minimum of 5000 signatures in 30 DAYS, White House staff WILL read and review the petition- and forward it up the ladder of 'insiders' if it merits their attention.

This is huge! How many times have you asked yourself or someone else, "WHY doesn't President Obama stop the slaughter of American horses?!"... when inside, you knew that this is an issue of which he is probably not even aware.
Here's our chance to make the President aware of what is happening, and why it should never happen again! You do have to create an account and log in, but it only takes a moment, and this is so important!
Sign this petition. Forward it to EVERYONE you know, and implore them to sign it and share it! If we will each take this VERY seriously, we can make our concerns known at a whole new level!
Forward ho!! Let's do this- NOW!
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/support-b an-horse-slaughter/q30gJg1k?ut m_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=sho rturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

Horses injured in transit

A screen shot of Sue Wallis on Facebook declaring that bute is safe after 30 days. She knows it is not, but doesn't seem to care.

Children at risk from bute in American horse meat.

Irish_Vet_White_Paper.pdf Download this file

TCEQ Cites Company For Dumping Dead Horses On Rriver Bed

2011-09-20T20:23:00.002-04:00

Yet another reason for ending this cruel and dishonest business for good.

by KVUE News

kvue.com

Posted on September 19, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Updated today at 5:35 PM

PRESIDIO -- KVUE News has a follow-up to a story on the horse export pens on the border.
Horses in this country headed to slaughter in Mexico are held in livestock pens in this tiny West Texas town before they cross the border. A recent report revealed allegations of abuse and neglect at one facility. Now, the Texas Environmental Agency has cited that same company for illegally dumping dead horses along a river bed.

KVUE News has obtained video shot by investigators with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. They flew over the export pens in a DPS helicopter after complaints this summer about dead horses dumped in a dry river bed.

"The smell is horrendous," said Amber Taylor, who works with a horse rescue group in Virginia. She shot her own video of the illegal dumping site. Taylor came to Presidio to document allegations of abuse and neglect of horses kept in the Texas export pens before they’re sent to slaughter in Mexico.

"You can just look up where these horses are and see the buzzards flying around," she said.
Taylor said she saw dying and dead horses at the export pens leased by the C-4 Cattle Company.
"I have to believe there are so many more," she said.

Environmental investigators also videotaped a path they discovered at the illegal dump site. It lead straight to the C-4 export pens.

The investigation details four serious violations. Most focus on the C-4’s failure to document the number of horses that died at the facility, the cause of death, and proof that the animals were disposed of at an authorized dump site.

In an e-mail, the owner of C-4 said his lawyer would appeal the decision to cite his business. The environmental agency has not imposed a penalty yet.

The company faces up to $10,000 a day per violation.

U.S. Representatives Praised for Introducing Bill to End Horse Slaughter

2011-09-20T12:37:00.001-04:00

from the Humane Society of the United States

We have been waiting for this for years. Here is our best chance of finally getting the horror of horse slaughter outlawed for good.

The pro-slaughter factions - especially well funded and organized groups like the so-called "United Horsemen" have misled not only our law makers, but many well meaning members of the public as well. They have claimed that the "unwanted" horses such as the old, sick, crippled and otherwise "useless" horses will be left to suffer because their owners "cannot afford" to pay for veterinarian administered euthanasia.

They have said that slaughter is "euthanasia" or even more disgusting, "humane harvesting." and that in the U.S. slaughter was well regulated and humane.

They have even gone so far as to deny the food safety issues in American horses despite the undeniable fact that American horses are not raised like food animals and that slaughter in this country is not intended for food production anyway. The only reason horse slaughter exists here is so the large breeders can breed indiscriminately and have a dumping ground for "culls" that don't meet their expectations, aren't the "right" color or don't have the conformation to excel in whatever sport they were bred for. Slaughter makes it easy for irresponsible, heartless owners to get rid of horses they no longer want for whatever reason.

But now, with the appearance of this Irish Veterinary Paper which clearly describes the lengths the European Union is going to in order to protect its citizens from the drug that is probably the most commonly prescribed drug in American Veterinary Medicine: Phenylbutazone - bute. It is an NSAID, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory, and is used in horses the way aspirin/ibuprofen is used in human medicine.

This paper clearly states what we have been trying to tell our legislators for years: Even minute amounts of bute in horse meat can cause aplastic anemia in children, and even a single dose in a horse's lifetime requires mandatory, permanent removal from the human food chain.
The United States simply cannot continue to knowingly export horse meat containing this dangerous drug - as well as many other banned substances.- for consumption of unsuspecting consumers overseas. It is despicable as well as illegal.

Please contact your own Senators and Representatives and ask them to co-sponsor S.1176/H.R. 2966 The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act of 2011.

September 19, 2011

U.S. Representatives Praised for Introducing Bill to End Horse Slaughter

The HSUS applauds U.S. Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., for introducing H.R. 2966, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act of 2011.

The Humane Society of the United States applauds U.S. Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., for introducing H.R. 2966, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act of 2011, a bipartisan measure that will end the export and inhumane killing of American horses for human consumption across our borders. The bill was introduced in the House with 57 original co-sponsors.
“Although horse slaughter plants no longer operate in the United States, many thousands of American horses still endure the long journey to Canada and Mexico to be killed in cruel and unacceptable ways,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS. “Americans don’t eat horses, and we don’t have to be the nation that is the pipeline for horse meat to satisfy the demand for a small group of high-end foreign consumers in Belgium and Japan.”

“I personally believe in the importance of treating all horses as humanely and respectfully as possible,” said Rep. Burton. “I look forward to working with Representative Schakowsky to end the cruelty after decades of effort to stop these practices.”

“I am proud to join Representative Burton in supporting this bill to put a stop to the cruel practice of shipping horses abroad for slaughter,” said Rep. Schakowsky. “As a strong supporter of animal rights and a horse lover, I recognize the need to protect animals that aren’t able to protect themselves. Protecting animals ought to be a bipartisan issue, and this bill is a strong step in the right direction.”

Approximately 100,000 American horses are sent across U.S. borders to slaughter each year. This represents 1 percent of the total population of American horses, as the vast majority of horse owners choose humane euthanasia—not long-distance transport and slaughter—as an end-of-life option for their beloved companions. States have acted to stop horse slaughter, shuttering the last remaining horse slaughter plants in the United States in 2007, and federal courts have upheld these state laws. Now Congress must act to stop the export of live horses for slaughter in Canada and Mexico.

The horrendous end for these American icons sold for slaughter begins at an auction. The journey to and across a border can mean confinement in a trailer at temperatures in excess of 100 degrees for thousands of miles without access to food or water. Once unloaded, the exhausted, dehydrated and often battered horses are recklessly shoved into kill boxes where they suffer abuse as workers’ attempts to render the panic-stricken animals unconscious cause additional suffering.

A recently released GAO report also recommends that “Congress may wish to consider instituting an explicit ban on the domestic slaughter of horses and exports of U.S. horses intended for slaughter in foreign countries.” National polls show that 70 percent of Americans favor a ban on the slaughter of these animals, which hold an iconic place in the nation’s history and its self-image. The HSUS joins Reps. Burton and Schakowsky, along with the vast majority of Americans, in support of this bill to protect our treasured equine companions from this cruelty by banning their slaughter for human consumption.

A Senate bill, S. 1176, was introduced in June by U.S. Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La, and Lindsey Graham, R.S.C., and now has 24 co-sponsors.

NEED TO KNOW | Removing horses from the wild | PBS

2011-09-12T12:02:00.000-04:00

Another on target video from Ginger Kathrens. Please watch & share! At the rate the BLM is removing the horses don't have much time left before the herds are so small that they are no longer genetically viable.

It's sad and frightening that our government is allowing the DOI/BLM to decimate our wild herds in the name of "balance" when it's obvious that there was no "balance" even before more horses were removed. The millions of range destroying cattle and the pitiful remnant of our once thriving herds of wild horses barely hanging on as herd after herd are torn apart, families torn apart, never to see each other again.

It is cruel, unnecessary and illegal.

Animal Welfare Groups Challenge GAO Findings

2011-09-11T20:18:00.000-04:00

Excellent article and report from The Equine Welfare Alliance (EWA) and Animal Law Coalition (ALC) on the unacceptable shortcomings of the recent GAO Report on horse welfare.

Please click on the links below to read their exhaustive analysis and executive summary. Both are nothing short of excellent and points out failures and bias that needed a light shown on them.

Please share this with your friends!

Amplify’d from horsebackmagazine.com

Animal Welfare Groups Challenge GAO Findings

September 7, 2011

GAO Follows Horse Slaughter Lobby Down the Rabbit Hole

Chicago (EWA) – The long awaited Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on horse welfare fell far short of the respectable reporting we have come to expect from the GAO, even raising questions as to the agency’s credibility.

The Equine Welfare Alliance (EWA) and Animal Law Coalition (ALC) have issued an exhaustive analysis and executive summary, demonstrating the embarrassing and shocking lack of evidence for GAO’s findings.

The analysis concludes that the GAO report is “disturbing” as it is filled with speculation, anecdotes, hearsay and unsupported opinions. The GAO sources appear to be largely known slaughter proponents.

“The GAO’s pro-slaughter bias is clearly evident in the report’s defamatory accusation that the Cavel fire in 2002 was started by so-called anti-slaughter arsonists,” states co-author and EWA vice president, Vicki Tobin. The cause of the fire was never determined and it was Cavel’s owners who benefitted from the fire, claiming $5M when the damages were estimated at $2M.

The EWA/ALC analysis details how, instead of doing the hard work of gathering actual data, the GAO relied on chitchats with a handful of state veterinarians with a few livestock board and other state officials and on information provided by pro-slaughter organizations.

“The GAO’s economic models fail to credibly take into account basic principles of supply and demand, the extremely limited effect of slaughter on the horse industry and the devastating effects of one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression”, said ALC’s Laura Allen. “Instead, the GAO report blamed the closing of 3 U.S. horse slaughter plants in 2007 for a decline in live horse prices, loss of horse markets, and a rise in horses in need.”

Carolyn Betts, Ph.D. Economics explains, “There is, by definition, no correlation between something that stays roughly constant over time – the number of horses slaughtered – and something that the GAO claims has gone up significantly over the same time period – the number of horses abandoned and neglected. In the absence of an observable correlation, it is nothing short of “heroic” for the GAO to assume a causal relation from a proximate constant to a variable that it argues has increased.”

A FOIA request for the data and methods the GAO used in developing its economic models was denied by the Congressional Committee that requested the GAO report. The EWA/ALC analysis concludes that this is nothing short of a Congressional cover-up for the GAO’s unsubstantiated claims.

A study by John Holland, co-founder and president of EWA, which was provided to GAO, found that cases of horse abuse and neglect in Illinois rose and fell with the unemployment rate. The same study found absolutely no mathematical correlation between these cases and the rate of slaughter.

The EWA contends that slaughter actually contributes to the problem of too many horses by enabling over-breeding and driving down prices. GAO’s economic model, done correctly, would have shown that prohibiting export of horses for slaughter would be the one thing that would really improve horse welfare over the long term.

The analysis also points out that the GAO report completely glossed over critical food safety issues raised by the slaughter of American horses for human consumption. The GAO was indifferent to the export of U.S. horses for slaughter for human consumption despite the fact that these horses contain drugs, such as phenylbutazone, which the FDA bans for use in animals used for food. Vicki Tobin explains, “U.S. horses are not raised or regulated as food animals. Given the importance of food safety, horse slaughter for human consumption should not even be a discussion point in a government report, let alone a recommendation.”

Probably one of the more ridiculous recommendations by the GAO is that USDA/APHIS will do better in enforcing humane transport regulations if there is slaughter available in the U.S. But historically, USDA/APHIS has always done an abysmal job of enforcing these regulations. Long before the 2007 closings, horses were exported for slaughter in large numbers and suffered on long, arduous trips over the borders and within the U.S.

In fact, the GAO’s discussion of APHIS’ shocking ineptitude and indifference to horses and the horrific mistreatment they endure throughout the slaughter pipeline is reason enough for Congress to ban horse slaughter and to do it now.

#

The GAO report and the EWA/ALC report will be discussed at the upcoming International Equine Conference, Sept. 26-28. Visithttp://www.equinewelfarealliance.org/Int_l_Equine_Conference.html for additional information and to register.

The Equine Welfare Alliance is a dues-free 501(c)(4) umbrella organization representing 189 organizations and hundreds of individual members worldwide. The organization focuses its efforts on the welfare of all equines and the preservation of wild equids. www.equinewelfarealliance.org

The Animal Law Coalition is a coalition of pet owners and rescuers, advocates, attorneys, law students, veterinarians, shelter workers, decision makers, and other citizens, that advocates for the rights of animals to live and live free of cruelty and neglect. www.animallawcoalition.com
Read more at horsebackmagazine.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/rqwp15

UK Horse Owner Law - Coming to Canada And Mexico

2011-09-03T23:49:00.002-04:00

I just got this from the UK site, HORSE 4 Life. These are the regulations for the "Passport System" for horses in countries that export horses to be slaughtered for human consumption. This is what is coming to Canada and Mexico next year. If you objected to NAIS, you're going to go nuts over this!

HORSE 4 LIFE equine support - UK Horse Owner Law

UK Horse Owners
Do You Know The law?

The Horse Passports Regulations 2009

It is an offense to own or keep a horse without a passport, therefore it is an offense to sell or purchase a horse without a passport

It is an offense to fail to notify the Passport Issuing Organization of the change of ownership, this should be done within 30 days of purchase or change of ownership.

Any horse born after the 1 July 2009, or which doesn’t already have a passport, must also have a transponder (microchip) fitted. These can only be inserted by veterinary surgeons.

It is an offense to have more than one passport for a horse, if you have, then arrange to return one to the relevant issuing organization.

Passports must accompany your horse at all times, including during transportation (except in emergency situations). The person with primary responsibility for the horse must have the passport made available to them if they are not the owner.

Foals must have a microchip and passport by the 31 December in the year of birth or within six months of birth, whichever is the longer. If the ‘foal’ is to be moved before then it must have a microchip and passport, except where it is being moved with the dam.

All horses presented for slaughter to export to the European Union must follow these regulations - especially ours.

Is this what you want to do so that the Big Breed Organizations and Sue
Wallis can continue to over breed and dump their unfortunate "culls" on
a one way trip to Hell - individuals that most people would be proud to own, except they are not the right color,right size, right conformation for the breeder's sport of choice, etc.,
etc., etc.

What these people really need is a stiff dose of truth serum! If slaughter were the answer, why hasn't it worked? We are sending more horses to slaughter now than when we had plants in the US, and there is absolutely no way to blame any "excess" horses on the fact that the plants are now in Canada and Mexico. Hell, we always sent horses to slaughter in Canada and Mexico, and I never heard even one sniffle about how much "longer the trip" was and/or how much "more humane" the US plants were - until we shut down the three remaining horse slaughter plants in the US that is.

No matter that there are many places in the US that are closer to the Mexican plant just across the river from El Paso than the two in North Central Texas - a long way from El Paso! - and I'm certain many are also closer to Alberta than Illinois. No matter that our plants weren't even slightly more humane than Canada or the EU certified plants in Mexico - where most ofour horses go in Mexico.

So, to all those who are falsifying the affidavits that are required now to export American horses to Canada and EU certified plants in Mexico, I say to you: How ya gonna fake a transponder?

On Wyoming's Wild Horses, the BLM Unambitiously Responds

2011-08-25T23:29:00.001-04:00

Andrew Cohen has served as chief legal analyst and legal editor for CBS News and won a Murrow Award as one of the nation's leading legal analysts and commentators.

This is the fourth in a series of articles in the Atlantic exposing the BLM and its illegal decimating of our wild horse herds.

Please read and send to your representatives in Washington. This is an utter farce. The BLM is NOT above the law - they just think they are.

Amplify’d from www.theatlantic.com

On Wyoming's Wild Horses, the BLM Unambitiously Responds

Aug 22 2011, 3:00 PM ET

The Department of the Interior defends its ongoing roundup of herds, but its response is filled with shallow arguments and misinformation

A helicopter is used by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to gather wild horses in the Conger Mountains near Border in Utah September 7, 2010 / Reuters

Here is Wyoming's pitch-pure tourism advertisement now playing on television. It's called "Don't Fence Me In" and it features beautiful natural scenes, including a herd of horses running upon the open prairie. Before I dive briefly back into the story of what the Bureau of Land Management, state officials, and ranching industry executives are doing right now, today, to two Wyoming wild horse herds, I ask you to please spend 30 seconds watching this video. It animates the issues at hand more than I ever could with words.

I love this commercial. As a proud citizen of the West, it evokes in me the pride I feel about living in a place that still has big skies and wide, open spaces. It makes me think of the scenic drive from Missoula, Montana, to Yellowstone National Park, through some of the most gorgeous country America offers to the world. And to me, anyway, it's brilliant marketing by the Wyoming Tourism Board, whose members obviously understand the value that millions of Americans place upon the wild horse as a symbol of the nation's heritage.

This is the fourth time in the past month or so I have written about the wild horses of Wyoming. Starting yesterday, as much as 70 percent of two free-ranging herds in and around Sweetwater County, in the southwestern part of the state, are being rounded up and taken away by BLM personnel and contractors. Approximately 700 wild horses will be taken from the wild and held in pens pending adoption or sale (or worse). "Don't Fence me In" may be the state's tourism slogan. Yet these very symbols of the state, the very symbols of the West, will soon be fenced in, probably forever.

First, I wrote about a BLM roundup plan that also included castrating the stallions of these herds and then returning the geldings back to the range. Then I wrote about the BLM's decision to back away from that part of its plan under public pressure from horse advocacy groups and the public. Finally, about 10 days or so ago, I wrote about the hypocrisy inherent in Wyoming's attitude toward its horses; it is marketing the herds as tourist attractions even as it is plotting with ranchers and the BLM to undermine the horses.

It was this last piece which garnered more attention than its predecessors. In it, I suggested that the federal agency in charge of the wild horses, the Department of the Interior, through its BLM, has not often shown itself to be a neutral player when evaluating the vested interests that compete for Western public lands. The ranchers almost always win. The wild horses almost always lose. And the Interior Department is run by a rancher, Ken Salazar, whose former subordinate, Sylvia Baca, is alleged to have encouraged ranchers to sue her own department to get their way. Now comes an official response from the Bureau of Land Management. I rebut some of its main components below.

THE BLM's RESPONSE

Here is the full text of the response I received late Friday afternoon from Tom Gorey, Senior Public Affairs Specialist for the Bureau of Land Management.

Contrary to what is alleged in this latest wild horse column of Mr. Cohen for The Atlantic, the Bureau of Land Management is not waging a "war" against wild horses, nor is it "managing for extinction," as other critics have similarly charged. In fact, the current on-the-range population of wild horses and burros (approximately 38,500) is greater than the number found roaming in 1971 (about 25,300), when Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.

The BLM is seeking to achieve the appropriate management level of 26,600 wild horses and burros on Western public rangelands, or nearly 12,000 fewer than the current West-wide population. The ecosystems of public rangelands are simply not able to withstand the impacts resulting from overpopulated herds, and that is why the 1971 law, as amended, directs the Interior Secretary to remove wild horses and burros in circumstances where the animals exceed the range's capacity to sustain them.

As for the claim that some wild horses "may even be slaughtered for meat," this is a disingenuous assertion, as the BLM screens both adopters and buyers of wild horses and burros. It is a legal reality, of course, that once the title of ownership to a wild horse or burro passes from the Federal government to an adopter or buyer that the animal becomes private property, but the BLM makes every effort through its screening process and the terms of adoption agreements and sale contracts to prevent the slaughter of former wild horses and burros. These documents both contain a clause that adopters and purchasers agree to, declaring that they have no intent to sell the animal(s) for processing into commercial products.

The comparison of the amount of BLM-managed land used for livestock grazing (157 million acres) to the amount used by wild horses and burros (26.9 million acres) ignores the fact that the 1971 law cited above confines the management of wild horses and burros to areas inside the boundaries of where the animals were found roaming on BLM and Forest Service-managed land in 1971. That's the law -- letter and spirit.

Regarding the Wyoming-related wild horse litigation, the BLM cannot comment on pending cases, but it can be said that neither the Interior Department nor the BLM view litigation as the way to go in resolving public land issues.

The big picture is that the BLM carries out a multiple-use mission, which is principally defined by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. This job requires our agency to accommodate various uses of the public land while preserving resources -- a complex mission, to be sure, but one that Congress has set forth as our mandate in law. While this multiple-use mission cannot compete with lurid headlines like "The Quiet War Against Wyoming's Wild Horses," The Atlantic's readership deserves to know the full scope of the BLM's responsibilities, which include the humane and cost-effective management of America's wild horses and burros, both on and off the range.

REBUTTAL

As a general matter, this was a disappointing official response on many levels. Rather than respond to the specific points my article raised, the BLM simply regurgitated in much of the same bureaucratese the talking points it has offered before when this topic comes up. Here was a chance for the BLM to really engage with wild horse advocates, on a topic a lot of people seem to be talking about, and the Bureau simply bailed. You bail, I guess, when you have the power but not the argument. The BLM has the authority. The roundup now is underway. Why go into the messy details?

Here are some of those details.

1. Leaving aside for another day the Bureau's "extinction" comment, the BLM first says there are roughly 13,000 more wild horses in America today than there were in 1971, when they were formally protected by federal statute. I'm not sure this is right. First, there were evidently far more than 25,000 wild horses in 1971, as the BLM now claims. In fact, the BLM's own figures (Appendix C, Page 37) indicate that in 1974 there were at least 42,666 wild horses on the range. If you believe those figures, there are fewer wild horses today, on less public land, than there were 40 years ago. Having caused this situation, the BLM should take responsibility for it.

2. The BLM next says that the "ecosystems" of "public lands" cannot withstand more than 26,000 or so wild horses. Here we are at the heart of the matter. Even though cattle and sheep outnumber wild horses on public lands by at least a ten-to-one margin, the BLM largely blames the horses for roiling the resources of the range. By doing so, the Bureau justifies the imposition of this arbitrary 26,000-horse figure even though there are millions of acres of public land where more horses could safely roam. So long as the BLM continues to make this claim and defend it in court, wild horse advocates will have a hard time protecting the herds.

This is the single most important aspect of the fight between horse advocates and ranchers. The BLM grades the wild horses harshly for their impact on the range. But it does not appear to grade the cattle and sheep for the impact they bear upon it. It's very much like the debt and deficit battle we just witnessed in Washington. The BLM is focusing upon the two percent that is relatively easy to fix rather than upon the 98 percent which is not. The reason is not hard to fathom. The ranchers have a powerful lobby. The horses do not. And the Interior Department doesn't want to tick off one of the industries it is supposed to regulate.

Interestingly, in its response the BLM failed to rebut, or even mention, the new claims made against it by Robert Edwards, a range scientist who worked at the BLM for 30 years before becoming an independent consultant. Just recently, as part of a lawsuit over the Wyoming horses, Edwards challenged the BLM over its claim that it is the horses, and not the livestock, which are ruining the range. Anyone interested in this topic should read the Edwards Report. At a minimum, it creates a disputed issue of material fact about whether wild horses deplete as many natural resources as the BLM says they do.

3. The BLM next calls me "disingenuous" for writing that some of the wild horses that are rounded up are sold to slaughter. Now, if I had accused BLM officials of selling wild horses for slaughter perhaps I might have deserved the label. But I did not. What I implied is that some of the horses the BLM takes off the range end up in the wrong hands and on their way to slaughterhouses in Canada and Mexico. This should be an undisputed fact. Just two weeks ago, for example, the BLM seized 64 wild horses in Utah in a sting operation against alleged smugglers.

The BLM defends the status quo on slaughter by arguing that it does the best it can when it sells or allows out for adoption wild horses. It's a neat argument on paper but it doesn't wash in the real world. In this grim video, for example, the pro-slaughter crowd earlier this year in plain view discussed how easy it is, in practice, for once-wild American horses to be slaughtered in Canada or Mexico. The BLM shouldn't pretend otherwise by claiming it is making "every effort" to stop this practice. If it were, federal inspectors would be performing brand inspections all across the borders to prevent wild horses from being rendered abroad.

Don't just blame the BLM for these sins of omission. Blame Congress and the White House, too. In 2004, for example, then Montana senator Conrad Burns, a Republican who once called ranchers "the best stewards of public lands," snuck into federal legislation what's known as the Burns Amendment. Signed into law by that great ersatz scion of the West, George W. Bush, the law effectively gutted protections for wild horses by allowing the BLM to private sell older and unadoptable mustangs to private buyers.

Like Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, and Wyoming's lone delegate to the House of Representatives Cynthia Loomis, Conrad Burns has ties to the ranching industry. Seven years after his amendment, and nearly three years after the Obama Administration came into power promising to restore the balance of power over the nation's land, air and water, no one in Washington has stepped up to restore protection for the wild horses of the American West. Not the White House. Not Congress. And not the courts.

The current slaughterhouse rule has created a dynamic problem that is only going to get worse as the BLM rounds up more wild horses it cannot afford to keep in captivity. Since the Bureau rounds up far more horses each year than can be adopted out or legitimately sold to honest buyers, and since the cost of housing the wild horses in "holding facilities" is high (tens of millions of dollars), the economics favor the slaughterhouse operators and their agents. Having created the supply-and-demand problem in the first place, the BLM should own up to its responsibilities to ensure the wild horses don't soon find their way to rendering plants.

4. The BLM next takes issue with my assertion that it is not allocating enough public land for the benefit of wild horses. Here again, the BLM has forcefully countered a point no one is trying to make. No one, including me, is asking the Bureau the BLM to open up all of its land to wild horses. But the fact is that the BLM and ranchers have pushed out wild horse herds even from those relatively small areas of public land that was specifically designated for the horses back in 1971. Citing these statistics and maps, wild horse advocates claim that the herds have been removed (zeroed-out) from perhaps as much as half of the area initially granted to the horses by statute. Tens of millions of acres of former wild-horse country now are off limits to horses -- but still open to livestock, these advocates say.

5. Unsurprisingly, the BLM didn't want to comment directly on the points I made about the way in which Wyoming is using its wild horses as marketing tools even as it conspires to get rid of them. I don't blame the Bureau for that. The fact is that the BLM is often sued by both sides in the battle -- by the wild horse groups who seek more protection for the animals and by ranchers who seek more decisive action by the government to get rid of the animals. In this respect, the BLM is not unlike any other government agency seeking to balance out competing interests. The point of my last piece was to suggest that there isn't really a great deal of balance between those interests. One wins. The other loses.

6. Finally, the BLM reminds readers that its function in life is not just to protect wild horses but also to properly manage the federal lands over which it has jurisdiction. Fair enough. Here's what Suzanne Roy, of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, says about that:

Multiple use does not require livestock grazing. Again, Congress deemed wild horses to be worthy of protection as national symbols of freedom whose presence on Western public lands is an important part of our history and heritage. The Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act designated the lands where wild horses were found in 1971 as habitat to be managed principally but not exclusively for wild horses. The BLM has turned this mandate on it head by allocating the majority of resources in federally designated wild horse areas to private livestock and not wild horses. The multiple use mandate does not require livestock grazing and it certainly does not require the imbalance of resource allocation that exists today.

If the BLM wants to live up to its mandate to protect and preserve America's wild horses then it will begin to address the inequities of resource allocation on the small amount of BLM lands on which wild horses reside. It will also shift resources away from the current costly and cruel roundup, remove and stockpile strategy toward on-the-range management of wild horses, utilizing cost-effective and humane fertility control strategies where necessary.

As I have written before, it's not just what the BLM is doing to these wild horses that disturbs a great many people. It is the way in which the deed is being done. Consistently backing ranching interests over horse advocacy groups, annually squeezing the horses out of more and more public land, the BLM nonetheless wants to maintain the public pretense that it is an honest broker when it comes to the fate of the horses -- that its officials are doing what they can, within the narrow confines of federal law, to protect and manage the herds. But this is a false pretense. Literally and figuratively these days, America's wild horses are on the run; suitable for marketing but otherwise harassed by their human stewards.

Read more at www.theatlantic.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/qRp8LX

The Quiet War Against Wyoming's Wild Horses

2011-08-23T19:52:00.000-04:00

Andrew Cohen - continued...

Andrew Cohen - Andrew Cohen has served as chief legal analyst and legal editor for CBS News and won a Murrow Award as one of the nation's leading legal analysts and commentators. More Andrew Cohen is a Murrow Award-winning legal analyst and commentator. He covers legal events and issues for CBS Radio News and its hundreds of affiliates around the country and is a frequent contributor to the op-ed pages of the nation's leading newspapers and online sites. From 2000-2009, Andrew served as chief legal analyst and legal editor for CBS News and contributed to the network's coverage of the Supreme Court, the war on terrorism, and every high-profile civil or criminal trial of the decade. He is also a single dad of a great kid, a racehorse owner and breeder, and the winner of several awards for writing about horse racing, including the 2010 John Hervey Award for distinguished commentary and the 2010 O'Brien Award for Media Excellence. Follow Andrew on Twitter at @CBSAndrew.

Amplify’d from www.theatlantic.com

The Quiet War Against Wyoming's Wild Horses

By Andrew Cohen

Aug 11 2011, 12:00 PM ET

How can a state promote its wild horses as a tourist attraction while it seeks to decimate herds?

Reuters

Listen for the sound of hooves pounding. Look for manes flying in the wind. Feel the rush of awe at the sight of these creatures. The Pilot Butte Wild Horse Scenic Loop Tour is something you and your family will never forget because Sweetwater County's cherished wild horses are living examples of a wide-open landscape and untamed frontier spirit.
--Wyoming Tourism Board

The Wyoming Tourism Board wants you and your family to come see the wild horses in Sweetwater County, but you better go quick. Beginning next month, federal officials and local contractors will roundup and remove approximately 700 of those horses (about 70 percent of the herd) to satisfy the complaints of the cattle and sheep ranchers in the area who don't want to share land with federally-protected horses. The "cherished," "living examples" of Wyoming's western heritage will be penned in and then given up for adoption or sold at auction. Many will soon die. Some may even be slaughtered for meat. All will likely be gone from view in Sweetwater County. You and your family, having traveled to southwestern Wyoming, may be plum out of luck.

This is my third take on these Wyoming horses in just the past few weeks, and I again beg your indulgence. First, I wrote about a failed federal plan to round up the horses, geld the stallions, and return some back to the herds to decrease natural procreation cycles. When the government was sued in federal court in Washington to stop the removal and castration, the feds backed off and came forward with a new pitch. The horses would leave, but none of the stallions would be castrated. This plan appears to be going forward. I wrote about that, too. The number of horses in two vast "herd management areas," located in a desolate part of the state, would again dip below 300, making it much less likely that a tourist family would see a wild horse in Sweetwater County.

The reason for my persistence isn't difficult to explain. Each time I write something about these horses, I learn something more about the politics of their plight that is worth sharing to a broader audience. This time, the story is not just about the hypocrisy evident in Wyoming's attitude toward these horses -- the state is both marketing them as tourist attractions and actively conspiring to get rid of them. It's also about the curious conduct of the U.S. Department of the Interior, which, again, has done the bidding of an industry that it is supposed to regulate. With friends like the BLM and Wyoming state officials, the horses and their human supporters don't need any enemies.

The cattle and sheep industries want the horses gone from the rangeland -- even though the ranchers reap the benefits of having their herds graze upon public land at low cost. To support their position, the ranchers cite a 1981 consent decree, overseen by a local federal judge, which limits the number of wild horses that are to be left in the Little Colorado and White Mountain herd areas to approximately 300. To the ranchers, the horses are a nuisance, not an asset, a point Wyoming doesn't happen to mention in its breathless tourism campaigns, which feature television ads of thundering herds.

"That our government is unwilling to find these horses room -- or even consider doing so -- contradicts the spirit, if not the letter, of federal law"

Meanwhile, the BLM and Wyoming seem more intent on justifying ways to get rid of the horses rather than upon figuring out how to preserve and protect them. Wyoming cites a 2003 agreement between state officials and the Bush-era Department of the Interior, which places legal pressure on the BLM to rid Wyoming of excess wild horses -- and the BLM itself gets to determine what constitutes "excess." These officials say they have history and the law on their side. But the facts seem to support those who support the horses. When you have the law going one way and the facts going another, it's typically time to go to court. And that's not the worst thing that could happen here.

Wyoming

Earlier this week, I asked Chuck Coon, Media Relations Manager at the Wyoming Office of Tourism, how he squared the evident contradiction of Wyoming's policies. How can you be advertising to tourists to come see the wild horses of Sweetwater Country while Wyoming's lawyers are in federal court endorsing the BLM policy to rid the area of most of its horses? Here is Coon's response:
As you know, management of wild horse herd sizes in Wyoming is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. No matter what decision is rendered in terms of herd reductions there will remain ample opportunities for visitors to see wild horses in several parts of this state. And we'll continue to help local tourism entities in the open landscapes where those horses still roam in Sweetwater County, Park County, Carbon County and Big Horn County as part of our overall marketing of the state as a tourism destination.

Coon understandably wants to reassure Wyoming's tourists that they still have "ample opportunities" to see the horses of Sweetwater County. We'll see. But the state didn't merely defer the question to the BLM, as Coon suggests. Instead, Wyoming weighed in heavily via litigation on behalf of its ranchers, one of whom, Matt Mead, happens to be the state's governor. No small wonder. The ranching lobby in Wyoming (and Washington) is powerful. The wild horse lobby is not. When it comes to these horses, might makes right under cover of law.

Through a spokesman, and via email, Gov. Mead dodged the question of how Wyoming could market its wild horses with one hand and decimate its wild horse herds with the other. "The Governor's approach, which follows the approach of past governors, is to ensure there is balance on the range and right now with the number of wild horses in this herd there is an imbalance." When pushed, the spokesman wrote: "The State of Wyoming has an interest in defending its consent decree. That agreement allows for horses on the range, but also prevents overpopulation that damages the public lands for other uses, which are equally important for tourism and other industries, like ranching and hunting."

When the governor's office uses the word "balance" to describe how Wyoming's vast range lands ought to be used, what it really means is "imbalance." Cattle and sheep dominate the Wyoming range when compared to wild horses. And when the governor's office uses the word "imbalance" to describe the current situation, what it really means is the growing "balance" between and among species when wild animals are left to their own devices. Meanwhile, as you will see below, reasonable people disagree about what constitutes an "overpopulation" of wild horses in or near Sweetwater County.

According to statistics compiled by Jonathan Ratner, of the Western Watersheds Project, one of the plaintiffs who initially filed suit to block the Wyoming removal/castration plan, Wyoming and the BLM currently allocate nine times more forage for livestock than for wild horses in the two herd management areas from which the horses soon will be taken. There are approximately 850,000 acres of public land in those two areas -- and the ranchers won't tolerate more than approximately 300 wild horses there. You do the math. There is plenty of room for all of Wyoming's four-legged creatures.

The BLM

If Wyoming is not a neutral player here, state actors like Gov. Mead have plenty of company. The BLM, the statutorily-mandated stewards of the horses, also have made clear on which side of the saddle they sit. Even the new plan to remove Wyoming's wild horses is full of circular logic and unanswered questions. What justifies such a low limit for wild horses on the wide expanses of the two herd management areas? Don't wild horses affect grazing lands far less than livestock do? Has the federal government asked the ranchers, benefits of so much public land use, to ease off their pursuit of the wild horses?

More than that, now there are now allegations -- made by the ranchers themselves -- that the Bureau of Land Management actually advised them on how best to maximize their position vis-a-vis the horse groups. The solution? The BLM told the ranchers to sue the federal government (advice, I am sure, that is simply appalling to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department has to defend those lawsuits). Here are the specific allegations contained in a complaint filed on July 27th by the Rock Springs Grazing Association (the RSGA) which acts on behalf of ranching interests in the area:

69. RSGA also met with Deputy Assistant Secretary Sylvia Baca to deliver its demand that BLM remove all of the wild horses on RSGA lands, to explain its rights under the 1981 order, and to formally request removal of all of the stray wild horses. RSGA also presented a copy of its letter to the U.S. Marshal officially asking for removal of all wild horses that have strayed onto the RSGA lands in light of repeated failure on the part of BLM to manage and control the wild horse numbers.

70. The Assistant Secretary attributed the failure to comply with external influences on the Department and Congress, and the lack of funding due to the need to contract for sanctuaries. The Assistant Secretary stated that litigation would be necessary to secure additional funding for wild horse gathers (my emphasis).

I have asked the BLM to comment upon these allegations, but I don't expect the Bureau's lawyers to allow anyone to say anything insightful about the topic. Assuming these allegations are true, they are another black mark upon the Interior Department. Here is a federal official, sworn under at least two federal statutes to guard the welfare of the wild horses, telling ranchers to sue the federal government to prompt quicker political action against the horses. And even if the BLM now backs away from Baca -- "she wasn't authorized to make those representations" -- the allegation itself is compelling insight into the atmosphere that surrounds the BLM's attitude toward these horses. Like the ranchers, the BLM seems to consider them pests and certainly not "cherished" symbols protected by law.

The BLM is part of the Interior Department. The Secretary of the Interior is a man named Ken Salazar and, although his Wikipedia entry strangely is silent on the matter, he is part of a long-time ranching family from Colorado. Salazar's brother, John, who recently represented Colorado's 3rd Congressional District (it's Western Slope), also is a rancher. Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R), who alone represents Wyoming in the House of Representatives, evidently raised Heifers when she was younger. These are some of the people who are judging the competing interests that clash over the fate of the herds. What chances do you reckon those horses have?

The Facts On The Ground

If Wyoming were the size of Delaware, a battle over what to do with federal land might make more sense. But Wyoming contains vast tracts of land owned by the federal government and, to a lesser extent, by the state. If we were talking about a huge number of wild horses and a relatively small number of sheep and cattle then the dynamic of the argument might differ as well. But the number of sheep and livestock in Wyoming now grazing on public land is far greater, orders of magnitude greater, than the number of wild horses who cross over between public and private land. And if the horses were, indeed, as destructive to the rangelands as the ranchers assert, perhaps the mass expulsions might be justified. But the horses aren't nearly as destructive as the cattle and sheep who roam the range.

If you don't believe me, just ask the BLM. The Bureau's own statistics tell the story of the "imbalance" the government and the ranchers want to maintain. Livestock grazing in the United States is authorized on 157 million acres of BLM land. For wild horses, it is restricted to 26.9 million acres of that land (and, as we have seen, there are limits within the limits). There may be over one million cattle and sheep now grazing public land in many western states. At the same time, there are approximately 38,000 wild horses and burros stuffed into only 11 percent of all BLM land. And even this relatively small figure is too high for the BLM; the feds say only about 26,000 wild horses should remain on public land.

Focusing upon Wyoming alone, the "imbalance" between land uses is pronounced. A 2007 article in the Wyoming Business Report indicated that the Rock Springs Grazing Association alone had between 50,000-70,000 sheep and 5,000 head of cattle on its grazing lands (that figure may be more or less four years later). By contrast, the BLM allows only 2,100 wild horses total in the five herd management areas of interest to the RSGA, a swath of land that encompasses thousands of square miles. But, again, even that relatively small number of horses is too great for the ranchers. While the horse advocates were suing the BLM for being too quick to get rid of the herd, the RSGA was suing the BLM for being too slow to remove the horses.

There are costs incurred by the federal government in allowing ranchers to use public lands (at low costs). From a 2008 Congressional Report on grazing fees:

BLM and the FS typically spend far more managing their grazing programs than they collect in grazing fees. For example, the GAO determined that in FY2004, the agencies spent about $132.5 million on grazing management, comprised of $58.3 million for the BLM and $74.2 million for the FS. These figures include expenditures for direct costs, such as managing permits, as well as indirect costs, such as personnel. The agencies collected $17.5 million, comprised of $11.8 million in BLM receipts and $5.7 million in FS receipts. Receipts for both agencies have been relatively low in recent years, apparently because western drought has contributed to reduced livestock grazing.

Other estimates of the cost of livestock grazing on federal lands are much higher. For instance, a 2002 study by the Center for Biological Diversity estimated the federal cost of an array of BLM, FS, and other agency programs that benefit grazing or compensate for impacts of grazing at roughly $500 million annually. Together with the nonfederal cost, the total cost of livestock grazing could be as high as $1 billion annually, according to the study.

Finally, in just the past few days, questions have arisen about the factual bases for the most commonly-stated reason given for removing the horses -- that they mess up the range lands for other users and uses. The American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, another one of the plaintiffs fighting wild horse removals all over the West, recently commissioned a study from Robert Edwards, a range scientist who worked for 30 years for the BLM before becoming an independent consultant.

With the legal battle joined in Washington over the fate of the herds, the horse advocacy group asked Edwards to go to the two Wyoming range lands in question, check out the horses, and evaluate the impact they have upon the land (and the impact the land has upon them. Here is a link to the Edwards's August 4th Report. It's main findings:

All areas observed and/or documented were found to be in only fair grazing range condition, which is typical of what is found on BLM range lands throughout the west.

Removing a large percentage of the wild horses is not likely to result in an improvement of range condition since the percentage of forage allocated to wild horses is very small compared to the amount of forage allocated to livestock (the forage allocation for wild horse use is only 2% to 3% of the total forage allocation for the [two herd management areas].

Information from the BLM indicates that there are well water sources in these HMAs which are turned on and off to accommodate livestock use. If true, this would reduce the number of water sources available for wild horse use in the summer months.

Limiting the number of water sources forces the wild horses to congregate in areas where water is available, and consequently increases the negative impact they are having on the range areas they are using.

There is no emergency situation in the area that would cause significant damage to the range or harm to the wild horses if they are not removed.

The forage resources needed to support the wild horse population are more than adequate and the horses observed are in good condition.

In other words, the land can sustain a much larger number of wild horses than the BLM, Wyoming, or the ranchers have been willing to admit. Not only that, but the land (the water, actually) is evidently being manipulated by ranchers and/or the BLM in a way that is detrimental to the horses (by denying them water and by pushing the herds toward livestock areas, which which gets them in more trouble with the ranchers). Soon, the BLM, Wyoming, and the RSGA will unleash their own experts to discount Edwards' conclusions. They will likely say that the BLM's calculations are reasonable, supported by evidence, and that the law is settled by consent decree.

This war is eternal and the horses almost always lose. Even if Edwards' conclusions don't hold up in court -- federal judges are required by law to give deferences to the findings of administrative agencies like the BLM -- they have common sense on their side. Blaming the relatively tiny number of wild horses in Wyoming for tearing up the trail, when there are tens of thousands of sheep and cattle roaming around, is like blaming the lifeboats for the sinking of the Titanic. It was a weak argument even before Edwards' findings cast doubt upon it.

As I wrote in my first piece on this topic, I recognize that this is a complicated issue; that the ranchers and government officials don't always wear the black hats in our western tale. There should be reasonable limits on the number of wild horses on public land. What strikes me about this story, however, is how little protection the wild horses of Wyoming really have, despite federal laws and regulations designed to protect them. What jolts me, too, is the strength and ferocity of the political forces arrayed against the horses. There are millions of acres upon which these horses can roam without materially interfering with livestock. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of such room in Sweetwater County alone.

That our government is unwilling to find these horses room -- or even consider doing so -- contradicts the spirit, if not the letter, of federal law. The governor of Wyoming is a rancher. The Secretary of the Interior is a rancher. The lone member of the House of Representatives grew up around cattle. And today ranching interests are routing the wild horses of Sweetwater County. That's an angle you won't see pitched anytime soon by Wyoming's tourism board. It wants you to come to Wyoming to see all the pretty horses, for sure, but it wants you to remain oblivious to what is being done to those horses, and why, in your name.

Read more at www.theatlantic.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/qv8KvY

Related articles

Wild Horses Are (Again) Losing Their Home on the Range By Andrew Cohen - The Atlantic

2011-08-05T09:36:00.001-04:00

Wild Horses Are (Again) Losing Their Home on the Range - Andrew Cohen - National - The Atlantic

Wild Horses Are (Again) Losing Their Home on the Range
By Andrew Cohen

Jul 28 2011, 10:30 AM ET 40
America's wild horses are in trouble, and the federal government isn't helping

Rachel Reeves

Why did this animal that had prospered so in the Colorado desert leave his amiable homeland for Siberia? There is no answer. We know that when the horse negotiated the land bridge... he found on the other end an opportunity for varied development that is one of the bright aspects of animal history. He wandered into France and became the mighty Percheron, and into Arabia, where he developed into a lovely poem of a horse, and into Africa where he became the brilliant zebra, and into Scotland, where he bred selectively to form the massive Clydesdale. He would also journey into Spain, where his very name would become the designation for gentleman, a caballero, a man of the horse. There he would flourish mightily and serve the armies that would conquer much of the known world.
-- James Michener

It's been a hot, stormy summer on the Red Desert range in southern Wyoming, around Rock Springs and the state's southern boundary with Colorado, where Interstate 80 takes long-haul truckers and tourists through one of America's least hospitable landscapes. The desolate land even includes Sweetwater County, one of those romantic cowboyesque names that mockingly crop up from place to place in the Rocky Mountain West, more an aspiration than a reality when you consider that there isn't much water there and what there is isn't so sweet.

In this forlorn place are two "herd management areas" called "White Mountain" and "Little Colorado," places were some of America's wild horses roam free pursuant to federal rule and regulation. According to Bureau of Land Management statistics, the federal government owns or controls 849,033 acres of land in the area, Wyoming owns another 15,877 acres, and private entities own 149,647 more. BLM officials estimate that, after the 2011 foaling season, there are approximately 970 wild horses on White Mountain and Little Colorado lands.

If you do the math, based only upon the federal land figure, it comes to 875.29 acres per horse. Do a little more math and you learn that 875 acres equals approximately 1.37 square miles. Ask any horse owner you know if she could get by on that horse-to-land ratio and the answer is an immediate and emphatic "Yes!" At first glance, it seems like a perfectly harmonic arrangement; our nation's wild horses peaceably tending to our nation's less desirable lands out of the way of most human traffic. The symbol of our nation's history and growth simply left alone to graze land most of us would never see if we were to live a hundred lifetimes.

But alas it's a lot more complicated than that. Intertwined private ownership of lands within the management areas, differing land-use priorities, a lack of bureaucratic courage and creativity, and a 30-year-old deal between ranchers and a long-gone horse group, all have eliminated the possibility of simply working the acreage numbers for the benefit of the horses. The herd areas themselves are part of a "checkerboard" pattern of public and private land (the ratio is close to 50-50, say ranchers) and the horses themselves haven't helped their own cause. During the winter, they often migrate from public land onto private land, where they are considered a nuisance to some property owners.

This natural pattern has persisted for generations and it's been closely monitored by the feds for at least the past 30 years. With this history, geography, and horse biology in mind, the BLM announced last month that there were, again, too many wild horses on the two Wyoming ranges. Wildlife officials now plan in mid-August to begin to cull roughly 70 percent of the herds out of Little Colorado and White Mountain in a particularly controversial way. And, in response, wild horse advocacy groups and others filed a federal lawsuit Monday in Washington, D.C. seeking a restraining order that would halt the roundup.

All the time and all over the West, horse advocacy groups battle the federal government over the fate of wild horses. The story is almost always the same. The "horse lobby" cannot compete politically (i.e. financially) with the cattle or ranching industries. Invariably, it's the wild horses which lose out to the cattle or to the sheep or to other business interests. And invariably, its the federal government, acting through regulators who are captive to the industries they are supposed to regulate, which helps ensure that this occurs. In this case, for example, we see the federal agency responsible for protecting wild horses struggling to justify a decision that undoubtedly will harm a great many of those horses and, indeed, the future of those herds.

Sell the cow, buy the sheep, but never be without the horse. -- Irish Proverb

On June 14th, the BLM announced a plan to remove all of the wild horses on Little Colorado and White Mountain and to then return a small number of castrated or spayed horses to the range. Here is how the Bureau describes how the roundup occurs:

Multiple capture sites (traps) would be used to capture wild horses within the White Mountain and Little Colorado HMAs... Capture techniques would include the helicopter-drive trapping method and/or helicopter-roping from horseback. Bait trapping may also be utilized on a limited basis, as needed.

(These roundups can be so disturbing that they warrant their own treatment in a future article. I will try to get to it later this summer). Just one week later, however, under heavy fire from mortified advocacy groups, the Bureau partially changed its tune. It increased the number of horses that would be returned to the lands and decided not to spay the mares. Still, nearly 700 of 970 or so horses now on the Little Colorado and White Mountain range will soon be gone if the BLM gets its way. Here's how Interior Department officials described their new plan:

This modified decision returns about 177 geldings to the two HMAs to reach appropriate management level (AML). AML is the point at which the herd's population is consistent with the land's capacity to support wild horses in balance with other public rangeland uses and resources. The projected wild horse population remaining on the range following the gather would be about 205 in the White Mountain HMA and about 69 in the Little Colorado HMA.

There is no evidence that the horses are harming each other. And no factual detail about how their population has created an "imbalance" upon the vast range lands. Instead, Lance Porter, Field Manager at the Rock Springs office of the BLM, justified the "modified" decision" by writing that he had "concluded that gathering the excess horses is necessary to preserve and maintain a thriving ecological balance and multiple-use relationship" on the land. By bringing back only castrated stallions to the two Wyoming herds, Porter's plan was meant to "prevent the necessity to gather more frequently due to lower population increases over time."

Going forward, the two herds will be genetically limited in ways the government has not yet fully evaluated. This is perhaps the most significant part of the new BLM plan. It doesn't just purport to addres the current "overcrowding" it sees on these ranges. It seeks to impact the ability of these herds in the future to breed the way wild horses have bred for thousands of years. It's a sort of genetic engineering which horse advocate groups say needs a lot more scientific review before it can be implemented in the wild.

Among the many options that were considered and rejected by the BLM was the concept of revising the existing "management level" so that more than 205-300 horses would be considered an "appropriate" number to graze on the hundreds of thousands of empty acres. Those figures (205-300) arose in 1981 as part of a settlement in a federal lawsuit over the fate of the horses. The party that sought (and obtained) the drastic limitation on the number of wild horses on the lands is an organization known as the Rock Springs Grazing Association. In 2007, according to the Wyoming Business Report, the Association celebrated "100 years of unity."

Here's what else the business paper had to say about the group:

Today, the grazing association has about 50,000 to 70,000 sheep and about 5,000 cattle using its deeded and leased lands. That's compared to 200,000 to 300,000 sheep when the grazing association was first formed. The numbers have not increased in recent years due to seven years of drought and conservative management. Charging fees for surface use, the RSGA generates revenue for its shareholders while welcoming the energy industry. From trona, coal and natural gas, to pipelines and energy transmission lines, RSGA shares its property

Shares its property with the energy industry, that is, but not with a relatively small number of the nation's wild horses. Although the federal government frequently asserts itself to reshape land use disputes out West, the Interior Department evidently wanted no part of revising the old limits endorsed by the RSGA. In its June "Environmental Assessment" of the matter, the one which is now used to justify the looming roundup, the Agency wrote:

Deviating from existing policy, planning decisions, and agreements reached pursuant to the District Court Order are not considered options nor are they within the scope of this EA. Without the cooperation of private landowners, there is a possibility that this HMA could be eliminated or boundaries redefined. Therefore, this alternative was considered by (sic) eliminated from detailed analysis.

In other words, the Agency spent no "detailed" time evaluating whether the RSGA would cooperate more fully with the government to allow more horses to stay on site-- even though the government says it owns more than 80 percent of the land of the Little Colorado and White Mountain ranges. This is hardly a neutral or objective position for an administrative agency to take-- and perhaps a judge will even doom it as arbitrary and capricious. And here is the most revealing portion of the BLM's circular rationale for removing so many horses at once and then precluding the herd (through the gelding of its sires) from recovering as nature intended.

An alternative considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis was the incremental approach of removing excess wild horses from the HMAs over a period of time. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need to maintain the AMLs, as the existing population of wild horses within the HMAs is currently above the established AMLs and excess wild horses need to be removed in compliance with applicable regulations described in Section 1.3. Due to the number of excess wild horses to be removed and the large geographic area of the HMAs, this technique would be ineffective and impractical to meet the purpose and need.

This passage tells us that, for the BLM, the most important factor here was to reduce the horse population to fit it within the range established 30 years ago. That goal, we learn here, overrode consideration of a number of other factors, including the current health of the horses and the future of the herd. The Agency didn't even reach out to the RSGA to see whether there was any room for compromise. The potential solution of removing fewer horses simply "did not meet the purpose and need" to maintain the 30-year-old deal, the Agency determined, and the BLM sure wasn't going to stick its neck out for a bunch of wild horses it is by law sworn to protect.

"I'd rather have a goddamn horse. A horse is at least human, for God's sake."
-- J.D. Salinger, Catcher in the Rye

On Monday, the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC) and other advocates filed a federal lawsuit seeking to halt the roundup before it begins. While you were worrying about offending the good burghers of Rock Springs, the complaint tells the officials at the Interior Department, you were violating the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act as well as the procedural guidelines contained in the Administrative Procedure Act.

Here is how the complaint describes the ways in which one of the named plaintiffs would be harmed by the current roundup plan.

Donna Duckworth visits the White Mountain and Little Colorado HMAs nearly every day, photographing the wild horses and scenery, walking, and otherwise enjoying the beauty of the area. She visits the horses so regularly that she now recognizes individual wild horses and their family groups... Based on her frequent visits to the HMAs, she can also accurately predict where the wild horses will be found based on the weather and the time of the day. She observes that many other people share her interest in the wild horses. Nearly every night she goes out to the HMAs, she sees people looking for and watching the wild horses. Ms. Duckworth experiences great aesthetic enjoyment in viewing wild horses engaging in natural social behaviors in these HMAs - such as mothers caring for their young and other young horses, and stallions protecting mares and foals as they nurse.

As for the legal allegations, the plaintiffs say that the Bureau violated both the letter and spirit of federal law, as well as its own rules, by issuing its "modified decision" without affording the public an opportunity to comment upon the new plan and by failing to adequately protect the "viability" of the two wild horse herds. Federal law, the plaintiffs say, requires the BLM to undertake its "management activities" at "the minimal feasible level" and not en masse as contemplated by the removal of nearly 70 percent of the existing herd. To the extent that the 1981 court order contradicts federal law, the horse groups say, federal law must prevail.

Here's one passage from the complaint that offers some flavor as to what the plaintiffs say is at stake in the case:

The BLM's decision to roundup large numbers of wild horses from these herds and return only castrated stallions harms AWHPC's organizational interest and the interests of its coalition members in protecting and preserving viable free-roaming herds of wild horses on public lands for generations to come. The decision to create "minimally reproducing" herds of wild horses in Wyoming is inconsistent with AWHPC's goal of protecting viable, free-roaming herds of wild horses and will set a precedent for wild horse management in other HMAs that would allow the BLM to pursue actions that alter the horses' natural behaviors, change their social dynamics, and harm the integrity and genetic viability of their herds on a broad scale.

Tom Gorey, senior public affairs specialist at the BLM in Washington, said Tuesday that the Agency has no comment about the pending litigation. It is likely, however, in the next few days, that the BLM will move to dismiss the complaint by arguing that the Agency complied with all procedural requirements and that the federal courts are mandated by law to afford great deference to the decisions made by administrative officials.

I asked Cindy Wertz, a public affairs specialist at the BLM's Wyoming State Office, whether the BLM had contacted the Rock Springs Grazing Association to see if there were wiggle room on the horse limit in the White Mountain and Little Colorado areas. She blew off my question. "We're always having discussions with various public land users, partners and permittees," she told me via email. "I couldn't comment on what is actually discussed during them." Meanwhile, Wyoming, wake up! You advertise the "wild horses" of Sweetwater County in your online tourist material but if you don't chime in soon on this fight there won't be any horses left in Sweetwater County for tourists to sightsee.

The horses paw and prance and neigh
Fillies and colts like kittens play
And dance and toss their rippled manes
Shining and soft as silken skeins
--Oliver Wendell Holmes

Everyone but the most ardent zealots agree that wild horses do have to be "managed" from time to time by the Bureau of Land Management. Reasonable people on both side of the wild-horse divide understand that the occasional culling of herds has benefits both to the horses themselves and to the neighboring flora and fauna. And the federal judges over the decades, over the centuries even, have approved herd culls. Horses may be the great American symbol but when it comes to animal control they are often treated like many other wild animals.

Some people who count even see them as pests. Not surprisingly, when you talk to the ranching people, they offer a same planet/different world sense of the problem. Don Schramm, the office manager of the Rock Springs Grazing Association, has his own complaints about the BLM. He told me Wednesday that the Agency "has not been able to do its job" of culling out more wild horses from public and private ranch lands because of a "revolving door" of horse groups who have challenged the BLM's actions at every turn. The White Mountain and Little Colorado herds, Schramm says, mostly graze on private lands.

"No," he told me, the BLM did not contact the Grazing Association to see whether the group would be amenable to revising the limit on wild horses in the two Wyoming herd management areas. But it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. "We are not going to allow any more than what's there," Schramm said. Thousands of wild horses have already been taken from the range over the past decades, he told me, and thousands more will have to be taken in the future. "It's complicated," he said, referring to the diversity of interests which coalesce around this arid, windswept country.

Schramm told me that his group has worked in concert with the BLM for decades, usually together on one side of the fight against wild horse advocates. "The horse numbers" out West today "are obnoxious," Schramm said. "They are so far out of management perspective and prescription that they are conflicting with wildlife. You've heard of the Australian rabbit? Well, we are on our way with the wild horse." Schramm said that his group had just learned of the federal lawsuit and he offered no comment on it.

Wyoming may officially be called the "Equality State" and its motto may be "Forever West" but no one should be fooled into thinking that the wild horses there get equal treatment or that a bunch of castrated stallions tending to a genetically unnatural herd is what Americans think about when they think of the heritage of the Wild West. Instead, the story of these two herds is a story of the federal government, steward of America's wild horses, consistently taking sides against the interests of those horses. In this case, it seems to me, the feds didn't even bother to fully justify what they had already decided to do. All that public land and the government can't figure out a way to better protect those horses? Please. A decision by U.S. District Judge Amy Birman Jackson is expected soon.

Undercover Investigation Underscores USDA - Documented Brutality

2011-08-01T20:25:00.000-04:00

I doubt anyone is surprised at the outcome of this investigation - not even the pro-slaughter lairs who insist we reopen domestic "regulated" horse slaughter plants for the good of the horses. As I know from personal experience in Texas the US plants were no better than the ones in Canada and the EU certified ones in Mexico.

After mountains of evidence just like this anyone who says they believe horse slaughter is "humane" or "euthanasia" is either in deep denial or is a lying SOB who should be tarred and feathered. This abuse is REAL and UNACCEPTABLE.

Amplify’d from www.prweb.com

Undercover Investigation Underscores USDA - Documented Brutality

30 month long investigation proves worst-case scenario is ongoing

Westminster, MD (PRWEB) August 6, 2009

Slaughter horses in Shelby, MT

It takes inhumane treatment to make the economics work

Westminster, MD (PRWEB) August 6, 2009
A thirty month long investigation into the plight of horses who have been sold for slaughter has revealed the worst levels of inhumane treatment. The abuse and neglect of these horses, sometimes referred to as 'kill horses,' was uncovered during the investigation and is consistent with findings and photographs contained in a 906 page document released by the USDA last year.

The investigation and report by Animals' Angels, a Maryland based animal welfare organization, confirmed that injuries and inhumane treatment documented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during 2005 continue.

Both USDA and Animals' Angels (AA) documents show horses severely injured, left medically untreated, ill, trampled to death and worse on their way to and at slaughter.

Executive Director of Animals' Angels, Sonja Meadows said their investigations quickly revealed that, "Both government records and our report show that being on U.S. soil was not then and is not now the slightest guarantee of humane treatment."

The slaughter of horses in the U.S., which stopped with plant closures in 2007, continues in Canada and Mexico. Groups advocating the slaughter of American horses have called for the reopening of U.S. horse slaughter plants, saying horses are better protected by U.S. humane laws than by laws in Canada and Mexico. However, during the 30 month long investigation that included repeated visits to auctions, feedlots and slaughter plants, AA investigators concluded abuse and inhumane treatment are inherent to the horse slaughter industry.

"It takes inhumane treatment to make the economics work," said Meadows. "We found the cruelty starts well before horses arrive at the slaughter plant."

The AA report documents available veterinary care withheld from horses severely injured or near death. Undercover investigators were routinely told, 'That horse is going to slaughter anyway,' or the horses were 'just passing through.'

Treatment of horses designated for slaughter ranged from beating horses and jabbing them in the eyes, to using a cable winch to drag downed horses with a wire wrapped around a back leg.

Investigators observed horses being injured or killed after being forced into dangerously crowded pens where they were kicked or trampled. Others were found frozen to the ground after overnight temperatures dropped well below freezing.

Young and small horses, as well as horses injured or weak were trampled to death in trailers crowded with 40 horses. Workers failed to separate stallions, ensuring fierce fighting in close quarters during transport.

Making conditions worse is the issue of stolen horses, according to Debi Metcalfe, founder of Stolen Horse International, Inc., which operates http://www.NetPosse.com, a horse theft recovery network that averages 80,000 unique visitors per month. "We have dealt with cases where horses were stolen," said Metcalf. "We later found out that these innocent pets had been slaughtered."

Investigators also discovered at both Canadian and Mexican slaughter plants horses left in bloody 'kill boxes,' used to restrain horses as they are being killed, during lunch breaks. According to the report, the horses were 'shaking violently as if they might fall down.' Plant management told investigators the horses 'aren't bothered by it.'

AA investigators documented injured and dead horses at every stop along the horse slaughter pipeline. At feedlots and export pens horses had no food and water troughs were empty. An export facility veterinarian informed investigators horses too weak for transport would be left behind to die in the pens.

"The public has been duped into thinking horse slaughter has ended, but it just moved a few hours further down the road," Meadows pointed out. "It hasn't somehow changed into something it is not. It is the same terrible suffering it was in 2005."

"By the time the horse finally stands in the kill box at the slaughter plant, it is often not the worst thing that has happened to it since this dreadful journey began," said Meadows.

For a copy of the investigative report, click here...

The documents including photos released by the USDA can be found here...

About Animals Angels

Animals' Angels is a 501 (c)(3) non profit organization with fulltime investigators in the United States and Canada. We work with law enforcement and government agencies to end animal cruelty and improve conditions for farm animals. We are in the field every week, trailing livestock trucks, visiting markets, collecting stations and slaughter plants. For more information please go to http://www.animals-angels.com

Read more at www.prweb.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/noD4pV

Canadian Horse breeders oppose ID plan

2011-08-01T09:33:00.031-04:00

I can't blame the breeders for not being happy with this program, but that's the price they're going to have to pay if they want to continue to sell their "culls" off to slaughter. They have been warned for three years.

Check the part where Canadian breeder Arnold McKee wants the government to "keep American slaughter animals out of Canada (YES!) because the horse market is glutted." What does this do to Sue Wallis and her horse-eating buddies' claim that lack of slaughter is why the American horse market is glutted? My god.

The market is glutted because of over breeding and and the worst recession the US has seen since the Great Depression!! Sue, you people have rebuilt the American horse market to DEPEND on slaughter, so now if our horses are banned by either Canada and/or the EU - which will include Mexico too - whatcha gonna do? Call ghost busters?

Just don't say we didn't warn you.

Amplify’d from www.producer.com

Horse breeders oppose ID plan

By Barbara Duckworth, Calgary bureau

June 17, 2010

A national requirement for health records and identification is like a burr under the saddle for some horse owners.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency will require horse owners to have an equine identification document by July 31 to record health records when animals go for meat processing.

Alberta horse breeder Arnold McKee said the system is poorly conceived and he does not plan to comply because of the added cost and work. He is leading a petition asking the federal government to drop the program and keep American slaughter animals out of Canada because the horse market is glutted.

McKee said he cannot afford to have a veterinarian certify his horses as drug free or get them microchipped or tattooed.

“We all keep track of our horses,” he said. “We all have health records.”

He said those breeder records should be enough.

He also wants to know who is liable if a horse is condemned at a slaughter plant because drug residues are detected. The original owner is not likely responsible if the horse had multiple owners, he said.

He also questioned the fate of horses that are placed in feedlots for six months waiting for drugs to clear their systems. He said they are more likely to get sick and require more treatment if they are in a confined space.

The industry is working on individual identification as part of a larger traceability program, but Teresa van Bryce of the Horse Industry Association of Alberta said there is little support from horse owners.

“Most of our horses don’t go for processing and they don’t really see the importance of it,” she said.

“It will have to be sold to horse owners in a way that they can see there is a benefit to them. At this point they would see it as a hassle.”

The industry has discussed unique animal identification for a decade. Equine Canada is developing a nine digit unique number in a program called CanEquid.

The ID number will include animal name, pedigree, registration number, a Coggins disease style description of the horse and microchip, tattoo and brand information. It would also be used to track movement and horse health.

A radio frequency tattoo is the most promising identifier.

The technology was developed in the United States by Somark Innovations, which shelved it when the U.S. decided not to proceed with
its national animal identification system.

The Canadian industry wants to pursue it and is looking for funding for further research.

The tattoo would be like a bar code applied anywhere on the horse, through the hair. It is only visible by scanner and the developers promise it can be scanned and read from a distance of more than a metre.

Claude Boissonneault, a non-ruminant species specialist with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, welcomes an easy-to-read identifier for horses.

“In the best of worlds, you would have equine that are identified with a unique number for life, which would allow the full traceability and you would know where the horse has been in its life,” he said.

Until then, horse owners are en-couraged to use the identification document that identifies the horse by markings and photos, and records past illnesses and medications.

“Right now, we are asking for history in the past six months of the life of the animals,” he said.

This is in response to a request from the European Union for full traceability within three years, he added.

“We have made the EU requirements a Canadian requirement.”

The CFIA has developed a list of prohibited drugs in food animals and is working on withdrawal periods for other medications.

“The withdrawal period will be developed as we go,” Boissonneault said. “All over the world horses are not raised as meat, so there are a number of veterinary drugs used that would not be approved in food producing animals.”

Drug residue tests are already conducted at federal meat plants.

CFIA veterinarians who suspect horses have been treated will hold them for testing. If the test is positive, a health risk assessment is done with Health Canada to see if the residue levels are acceptable or if the animal should be condemned.

Buyers at auctions in Canada and the United States have not always known a horse’s origins.

“We are telling them now if they are going to be bought for the Canadian market, they have to have paperwork,” Boissonneault said.

“It would not be a surprise to see the number of horses overall slaughtered going down.”

Read more at www.producer.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/naZTC2

Call on American Veterinary Medical Aassociation to Oppose Horse Slaughter

2011-07-31T09:32:00.025-04:00

Please take just a moment to tell the AVMA that horse slaughter is NOT "humane euthanasia"! Ask them to include all necessary information in their guidelines including this testimony by Dr. Lester Friedlander, DVM & former Chief USDA Inspector, who told Congress in 2008, "The captive bolt [used to slaughter horses] is not a proper instrument for the slaughter of equids, these animals regain consciousness 30 seconds after being struck, they are fully aware they are being vivisected," and GAO reports.

The captive-bolt is NOT suitable for horses!

Amplify’d from www.animallawcoalition.com

Call on AVMA to Oppose Horse Slaughter

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is accepting comments until September 1, 2011 about proposed updates to its Policy on Euthanasia.

The AVMA euphemistically describes the grizzly and outmoded practice of horse slaughter as "humane euthanasia" meaning a humane, good death.

In its 2007 Policy on Euthanasia and the proposed updates, AVMA endorses use of gunshot or the penetrating captive bolt gun to kill horses. In its 2007 Policy, AVMA states that "[a]dequate restraint is important to ensure proper placement of the captive bolt....When an animal can be appropriately restrained, the penetrating captive bolt is preferred to a gunshot."

This caveat about using "adequate" or "appropriate" restraint is echoed on one page of the 2011 proposed guidelines: "Both [gunshot and the captive bolt gun] should only be used by well-trained personnel who are regularly monitored to ensure proficiency, and firearms must be well-maintained. Appropriate restraint is required for application of the penetrating captive bolt". In the discussion of equids specifically, the captive bolt gun is declared only conditionally acceptable unless all criteria for its use are met. In an article linked to the proposed guidelines, there is a warning that "good restraint" is required "so that the device may be held in close contact with the skull" when fired.

But on another page in the same proposed guidelines for use of the penetrating captive bolt gun, AVMA declares it not conditionally acceptable, but acceptable as a method of killing horses. The only disadvantages cited here are that the use of the "captive bolt can be aesthetically displeasing" and "[d]eath may not occur if equipment is not maintained and used properly."

The proposed updates nowhere mention Dr. Lester Friedlander, DVM & former Chief USDA Inspector, who told Congress in 2008, "The captive bolt [used to slaughter horses] is not a proper instrument for the slaughter of equids, these animals regain consciousness 30 seconds after being struck, they are fully aware they are being vivisected."

Nor does the proposed AVMA guidelines mention the Food Safety Inspection Service(FSIS) has been grossly ineffective in protecting horses from cruelty during slaughter. In 2004 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the most frequent violation noted by inspectors in slaughter houses was ineffective stunning, meaning "in many cases ...a conscious animal reach[ed] slaughter" in violation of Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, 7 USCS § 1902(a); 9 C.F. R. §313.15, 9 C.F.R. §313.50(c). See GAO-04-247, GAO-08-686T.

GAO also noted there had been no effort made to stop the ineffective stunning and the records kept by inspectors were so poor, it was impossible to tell even by 2008 that there had been any improvement. In 2008, USDA's Office of Inspector General reported that FSIS management controls over preslaughter activities should be strengthened to minimize the possibility of egregious cruelty.

By 2010 GAO was adamant "[a]ctions are needed to strengthen enforcement" of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. GAO noted despite years of reports and highly publicized incidents of abuse at slaughterhouses, FSIS enforcement remains grossly inconsistent and in many places, non-existent. GAO 10-203

In effect, in recommending the penetrating captive bolt, AVMA does not consider that slaughter of horses occurs in a brutally cruel environment, not a carefully controlled laboratory setting.

Or maybe they do. As John Holland has explained, "In its 2000 report on methods of Euthanasia, the AVMA stated that the captive bolt gun should not be used on equines unless head restraint could be assured. This is because of the relatively narrow forehead of equines, their head shyness and the fact that the brain is set back further than in cattle for which the gun is intended. It is difficult for an operator to assure proper placement of the gun.

"No slaughter house ever found a practical way to restrain the heads of the horses, so by the AVMA's very definition, the process was not acceptable. The result was a very large number of ineffective stuns. These misplaced blows undoubtedly caused severe pain until a stunning or fatal blow was delivered. "

What is particularly disturbing is in its 2007 Policy on Euthanasia, AVMA simply omits any mention that horses' heads should be immobilized during use of the captive bolt gun. The report simply refers to "adequate" or "appropriate" restraint. The type of restraint is not described.

The fact is there was no effort made at the slaughter houses to restrain horses' heads during slaughter; nor is there any way to do so. There was no effort made to place the captive bolt carefully against the horse's forehead to ensure an instant death. Workers at horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. were generally untrained, paid low wages and in many instances undocumented. (In Canada inspectors were ordered to stay off the kill floor during slaughter out of fear for their safety; the government feared the violent workers on the kill floor.)

There is also the issue of danger to the public health. As the Veterinarians for Equine Welfare explain, "[VEW] strongly object[s] to the AVMA ... position in favor of horse slaughter for human consumption. For the AVMA... to condone the human consumption of meat derived from equines that have not been raised or medicated in a manner consistent with food safety regulations is, in our opinion, unethical, disingenuous, and dangerous."

A recent European Union Food and Veterinary Office investigation into the horse slaughter plants in Mexico revealed numerous serious violations including drug residues in the meat. For more on the food safety issue created by horse slaughter......

WHAT YOU CAN DO

The AVMA is accepting comments until September 1, 2011 on the 2011 draft of the Euthanasia guidelines. Email comments to animalwelfare@avma.org Urge AVMA to do the following: (1) reject that the penetrating captive bolt or gunshot can be done humanely and safely in a slaughter house setting, (2) find that horse slaughter is inhumane and (3) call on Congress to ban the slaughter of horses.

__________________________

More on AVMA's pro-horse slaughter stance and rebuttal by Equine Welfare Alliance co-founder, John Holland

Veterinarians for Equine Welfare White Paper Opposing Horse slaughter

More rebuttal to AVMA's pro-slaughter stance

Read more at www.animallawcoalition.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/qpU0hg

Wild Horse Round up Day 1 at Triple B Complex in Nevada – July 20, 2011

2011-07-23T20:54:00.019-04:00

There is a lot of information here. Please follow and spread the word. Although there is some good news here about the improvements in the way the horses are being treated, it's still true that the DOI/BLM are exterminating our wild horses an ever increasing pace.

Please! Help us stop them before it's too late!

Amplify’d from blog.grassrootshorse.com

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Wild Horse Round up Day 1 at Triple B Complex in Nevada – July 20, 2011

Editor’s Note: The following report and 22 photographs and captions are by Arla M. Ruggles who has been out on the range for us and attended Day 1 of the Triple B wild horse roundup in Nevada. This page will be continually updated. And we are waiting for video and photographs from Day 2. ~

“In our role as advocates for better treatment of our wild herds, it often seems like only the mistakes and abuses are talked about. The worst aspects of wild horse management operations do need to be brought to light, AND we should be just as quick to recognize improvements as they occur.

Today, it must be said that Sun J and BLM did an excellent job in all aspects of their gather operations, and every part of the process was carried out with professionalism and skill.

Sun J pilot, Josh Hellyer, showed marked improvement from his earlier performances at the Antelope Complex gather, early this past winter.

Throughout the day, Josh held back from the running herds, and at one point, even fell back and allowed them to rest and regroup before continuing into the jute enclosure.

None of the horses entering the trap appeared unduly stressed, and no lather appeared.
Read more at blog.grassrootshorse.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/n7rUst

Equine Welfare Groups Ask Congress To Save American Horses From Slaughter

2011-06-17T10:41:00.003-04:00

We won this round in the House. The full House passed the Budget with the Moran Amendment intact. Still, this must pass in the Senate without alteration for it to become law.

Also in the Senate, American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act of 2011 (S. 1176) needs all the support we can muster. Let's DO IT THIS TIME! Let's make this baby pass! The points against horse slaughter in this statement to the House will be just as relevant in the Senate. Let your Senators you want horse slaughter banned in the US once and for all!

Amplify’d from rtfitch.wordpress.com

Equine Welfare Groups Ask Congress To Save American Horses From Slaughter

Agricultural Appropriations Bill to defund USDA Inspections for Post Mortem Inspections of Horses Slaughtered in the U.S. for Human Consumption to be voted on June 15th 2011

Dear Congressman,

We, the undersigned Organizations urge you to consider the following when voting on the Agricultural Appropriations Bill that currently contains Congressman Jim Moran’s Amendment to De-fund USDA Inspections for Post Mortem Inspections of Horses Slaughtered in the U.S. for Human Consumption.

The major market for horse meat from this country is the EU. FDA and EU standards ban Phenylbutazone in all food animals. After 2012 it will require lifetime documentation proving that they have not received a prohibited substance.

Since our American horses are not bred for slaughter, no record is kept of medications they have received and the EU is currently depending on affidavits from their previous owners. Killer buyers come by these horses at auctions where sellers are supposed to fill out the affidavits.

Advocates were able to photograph 23 of these affidavits (called Equine Identification Documents) at the New Holland auction and found none that had been filled out properly. Most had simply been signed and left blank for the kill buyer to fill in. A subsequent report by the EU [Ref.Ares(2011)398056]found that 27 horses had tested positive for prohibited substances and all 27 were carrying falsified affidavits.Horses that are slaughtered include former pets, riding horses, racehorses, performance horses, wild horses and work horses. Most of them have received the toxic substances like phenylbutazone (bute), de-wormers and inoculations that are not approved and illegal for use in animals intended for human consumption. It clearly states this on the labels of these drugs. Bute is so commonly used in the US that it is sometimes referred to as horse Aspirin.

By allowing American horses to be sent to slaughter, we are encouraging illegal activity and sending a possibly harmful product to other countries for human consumption.

If we were to fund USDA inspection of horse meat, we would put the USDA in charge of verifying eligibility and verifying false documentation in order to keep the banned substances out of the food chain. It will be far more costly than 5 million dollars. It will only benefit foreign corporations and consumers; Americans don’t eat horse meat.

By allowing our American horses who are not bred for slaughter, to be slaughtered anyway, we in fact become responsible for compromising the health of unsuspecting consumers in other countries. The future ramifications of this could be extremely serious.

You will hear from those few with a financial interest in slaughter, that ending horse slaughter will destroy the horse Industry. Their arguments are easy to see through. They are NOT speaking for the horse industry (WE are the horse Industry, millions of responsible horse owners), they are speaking for the Horse Slaughter Industry.

It is an outright fabrication that the horse industry has been negatively affected because horse slaughter is not available, it is available at every auction in the country and they know that. The horse industry has taken a fall because of the state of the economy and because it has damaged itself through over-breeding, in the same way the housing market and the banking industries damaged themselves by overcrowding the market.

Horse slaughter promotes over breeding and creates the overpopulation problem we have today.

Home builders have stopped building homes, because there is no market for them. While breeding has slowed some in recent years it is still being supported by the slaughter market. Some breeders are responsible breeders breeding for quality all around. However many are not. They can still breed 100 horses, pick out the million dollar winner discarding the rest to slaughter. It’s like buying 100 lottery tickets, cashing in the 5 winning tickets, and getting your money back for the loosing 95 tickets.

We need to slow down breeding until the market balances out again. We need to bring back the population of horses to a population that America can sustain, so that they all can have good homes.

Dear Representative, an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the slaughter of horses for human consumption for the many obvious reasons, which we have not even mentioned here.

We stand firmly together as Respect4Horses Organization (R4H), Equine Welfare Alliance (EWA), Animal Law Coalition (ALC), Habitat for Horses Advisory Council, (HfHAC), Animal Recovery Mission (ARM), The Cloud Foundation (TCF) and Americans Against Horse Slaughter (AAHS), representing our combined almost one hundred thousand supporters, members and volunteers when we urge you to;

Please vote against any amendment that may be presented on the floor (possibly from Rep.Cynthia Lummis) that would appropriate funds to the USDA to inspect horse meat. Please vote to keep Congressman Moran’s amendment in the language of the bill to keep horse slaughter OUT of the business of the USDA and illegal in the United States of America.

Sincerely,

Simone Netherlands, Director, Respect4Horses Organization, (R4H) (928) 308-6718

John Holland, Director, Equine Welfare Alliance (EWA)

R.T. Fitch, Director, Habitat for Horses Advisory Council

Laura Allen, Director, Animal Law Coalition

Ginger Kathrens, Executive Director, The Cloud Foundation

Richard “Kudo” Couto, Founder/Investigator, Animal Recovery Mission (ARM)

Debra Lopez and Shelley Abrams, Directors, Americans Against Horse Slaughter (AAHS)

Read more at rtfitch.wordpress.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/mwhKji

Slaughterhouse Sue Wallis Tips Hand to GAO Report Foreknowledge

2011-06-10T11:56:00.003-04:00

How does Sue Wallis - who seems to be losing touch with reality completely - know so much about what is contained in the GAO report on horse welfare since the non-existent loss of the slaughter option in 2007? A report that was nothing but a delaying tactic to stall the passage of the previous anti horse slaughter bill - S277. For the closing of the US slaughter plants to have any effect on the so called "unwanted horse problem" there would have to be a disruption in the slaughter pipeline which DID NOT HAPPEN - not then and not now.

Obviously, this report WAS leaked to pro-slaughter interests as previously reported by HORSEBACK Magazine - and denied by the GAO.

This brings into question not only the motives and truthfulness of Rep. Wallis - as if there were any doubt about her motives and truthfulness - but also the GAO and it's report.

HORSEBACK Magazine has asked the GAO about these issues and so have I as a United States citizen, and neither of us have received an answer.

As a horse owner I HIGHLY resent Wallis' accusations about my motives. I also HIGHLY resent the extreme pro-slaughter lobby getting to see the GAO report months before the general public. Both these things are unacceptable.

PLEASE contact your Congress persons AND the GAO. To give or receive pre-publication information with the intention of using said information to influence legislation is a CRIME. So is lying to Congress.

Personally, I am SICK of Deep Pocketed Lobbyists running our country. If you are too, the write to Congress and the GAO. DO SOMETHING!

Amplify’d from horsebackmagazine.com

In Bid to Congress Wallis Tips Hand to GAO Report Foreknowledge

June 10, 2011

To the Honorable Members of the U. S. Senate and the House of Representatives:Please DO NOT SUPPORT any effort that will impact the welfare of horses or the horse industry without first studying a soon to be released GAO Report!

The GAO Study on the Horse Industry was requested by the Senate Ag Appropriations Committee more than a year and a half ago. GAO has thoroughly studied the effect of the horse processing plants closing in 2007. This study looked at the effect of the plants closing on the welfare of horses themselves, as well as the effect on farm economy.

We respectfully ask that all members of Congress wait for its release before sponsoring, co-sponsoring, or voting on any measure dealing with horses so that your decisions can be made on solid verifiable information.

It is our understanding that the draft report was due to be delivered with the USDA response back to GAO on June 8^th. This is the final step in the GAO process and should be delivered to Congress and the public very soon.

Voting on any measure dealing with horses without reviewing the entire report is voting with blinders on.

You and your colleagues need to have all the available information to make any sort of informed decision.

The devastated horse industry continues to be attacked by corporate fundraising animal rights groups led by the Humane Society of the United States and their many minions. They claim to care about horses…but truth be told, they care more about raising money. Selling misinformation, peddling outright lies, and jerking the emotional chains of good-hearted caring Americans is their lucrative stock in trade. When these so-called nonprofits spend less than ½ of 1% of their millions on helping a single dog or cat, let alone a horse, the motivation is pretty clear. They offer no solution to the soaring increase in starving, abandoned, and neglected horses whose owners can’t keep them, can’t sell them, and can’t give them away, nor do they spend any of their dollars to ease the suffering of unwanted horses.

Congressional members who support these destructive bans and prohibitions on the horse industry are stripping a cog in the agricultural wheel in favor of an animal rights industry that does not generate any revenue or jobs. That approach supports only non-contributory, emotionally-charged groups and eliminates a multi-billion dollar, tax-paying and jobs-generating industry. The inevitable end result will be a nation where only the very wealthy and elite few can afford to have a horse in their lives, and the sad demise of our beloved horseback culture.

Because we are the horse industry which has been directly affected by the loss of market for unwanted, unusable, and excess horses, we know that the entire equine industry is liquidating and downsizing. Fewer horses means fewer jobs, fewer horse shows, fewer rodeos, fewer new trucks and horse trailers, fewer training dollars, fewer veterinary services, fewer saddles, bridles, less need for feed – all adding up to a devastating economic contraction.

Efforts like the recent Rep. Moran amendment to the House Ag Appropriations bill , or the apparently soon to be introduced Sen. Landrieu sponsored “American Prevention of Horse Slaughter Act of 2011″ serve only to increase the inevitable suffering of the very animals they claim to protect by removing a moral and humane use of unwanted, unusable, and excess horses. These measures are a direct assault on the private property rights of individual horse owners, and interfere with state’s rights to encourage responsible and regulated businesses to enhance and improve their agricultural economies.

Destroying the U.S. horse industry simply means any ability to provide wholesome products welcomed by a robust worldwide market is denied to our own people, and that any opportunity to profit is exported to other countries. With the ability to ethically produce horse meat under regulated humane conditions in the United States we would create more than 1,000 good paying direct jobs practically overnight, minimize the suffering of horses, and go a long ways towards restoring a devastated U.S. horse market. Without an economically viable secondary market the value of all horses at every level has plummeted, and the entire diverse equine world has been economically devastated. The GAO Report should tell us the true and accurate extent of that damage.

We stand ready with a broad coalition representing horse owners and the horse industry, state and local governments, tribes, animal agriculture, wildlife managers, land and resource management experts, pet animal organizations and sporting dog groups, animal welfare advocates, zoos, circuses, animal research, and literally thousands of individual concerned citizens to offer information and testimony.

We respectfully ask for your support of families who hope to raise their children and grandchildren in our beloved horseback culture. Do not be deceived by the misguided agendas of those who practice “compassion gone wrong.”

Respectfully,

Rep. Sue Wallis

United Organizations of the Horse

Wyoming State House of Representatives

Vice Chair – National Conference of State Legislatures Agriculture and Energy Committee
Read more at horsebackmagazine.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/iDVJvt

Related articles

Drug residues in meat revealed in European report

2011-06-06T23:26:00.004-04:00

I feel I must dedicate this post to Wyoming State Representative Sue Wallis - better known as Slaughterhouse Sue - and her latest rant because the the House Appropriations Committee voted on an amendment to reinstate formerly existing language in a bill that prohibited wasting tax payer’s hard earned dollars on funding inspections of horse slaughter plants (5 million dollars worth).

That language was voted on and inserted in 2006 representing the opinion of over two thirds of the American public who stand firmly against the inhumane practice of horse slaughter in this country. The only reason that Rep. Moran of Virginia, an enlightened horse supporting state that makes money off from equine development, was forced to add the amendment was due to the back room, special interest finagling of Wyoming Rep. Lummis and her off the wall cohort “Slaughterhouse” Sue.

That's what set off this, Sue's latest screed in which she said - along with many other outrageous statements - that EU inspectors had never found drug residues in any horses. "NEVER," she screeched.

Besides this, EU inspectors recently busted slaughter plants in Mexico for non-compliance. And when they check Canada, they will find the same violations.

Read it and weep, Sue, but don't forget that we told you so.

Amplify’d from www.horsetalk.co.nz

Drug residues in meat revealed in European report

June 7, 2011

A European investigation into drug residues has shown horse meat had a higher percentage of non-compliant samples than beef, pork and sheep and goat meat in key categories

The report by the European Feed Safety Authority Dietary and Chemical Monitoring Unit is based on data for 2009 provided by the European Union member states to the European Commission.

From the total of collected targeted samples, 40.9 per cent were analysed for substances having anabolic effect and prohibited substances, and 63.1 per cent for veterinary drugs and contaminants (group B).

There were 1406 non-compliant samples (0.32%), or 1493 non-compliant results, out of the 445,968 targeted samples.

This was similar to 2008, when 0.34% of the targeted samples were non-compliant.

For non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (B2e) there were non-compliant samples in 0.6% of horse samples, compared with bovines (0.13%), sheep and goats (0.2%), poultry (0.46%), milk (0.03%), and rabbits (1.39%).

In testing for hormones, 0.26% of tested samples were non-compliant. In this category, 1.27 per cent of horse meat samples were found to be non-compliant, compared with bovines (0.34%), pigs (0.3%), sheep and goats (3.65%), poultry 0.05%), and aquaculture (0.46%).

Read more at www.horsetalk.co.nz

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/k9FmNz

I Don't Believe the World Will End Today. But Just In Case It Does.....

2011-05-21T00:10:00.003-04:00

Just in case the world really does end today I wanted to tell everyone that it's been just fantastic knowing all of you. Yesterday was a super day because I finally got to ride! Indy and I only stayed out about 30 minutes because this was my first ride with my new hip, and I didn't want to overdo it, and besides, this was our first ride since last October when I had to quit with my old hip.

Everything went great though. My hip felt like my real hip before it started going bad. Absolutely no pain. I didn't even feel any tightness on the inside of my leg - either leg really - despite being so long since I'd ridden.

Anyway, if it all ends today, tonight, whatever, I wanted to leave you all with this wonderful little story. I found it floating around the Net years ago, the author lost in cyberspace. Too bad, because whoever wrote this really should get credit. Enjoy.

FOR ALL THE GOOD CRITTERS ---------- ... and the people who love them...

A man was riding his horse down a road, his dog padding along by their side. The man was enjoying the scenery, when it suddenly occurred to him that he was dead. He remembered dying, and that his horse and dog had been dead for years. He wondered where the road was leading them.

After a while, they came to a high, white stone wall along one side of the road. It looked like fine marble. At the top of a long hill, it was broken by a tall arch that glowed in the sunlight. When he was standing before it, he saw a magnificent gate in the arch that looked like mother of pearl, and the street that led to the gate looked like pure gold.

He nudged the horse toward the gate, and as he got closer, saw a man at a desk to one side. When he was close enough, he called out, "Excuse me, where are we?" "This is heaven, sir," the man answered. "Wow! Would you happen to have some water?" the man asked. "Of course, sir. Come right in, and I'll have some ice water brought right up." The man gestured, and the gate began to open. "Can my friends," gesturing downward towards his horse and dog, "come in, too?" the traveler asked. "I'm sorry, sir, but we don't accept animals."

The man thought a moment and then turned his horse back toward the road and continued the way he had been going. After another long walk, and at the top of another long hill, he came to a dirt road which led through a farm gate that looked as if it had never been closed. There was no fence. As he approached the gate, he saw a man inside, leaning against a tree and reading a book. "Excuse me!" he called to the reader. "Do you have any water?" "Yeah, sure, there's a pump over there" The man pointed to a place that couldn't be seen from outside the gate. "Come on in." "How about my friends here?" the traveler asked. "There should be a bowl and a bucket by the pump." They went through the gate, and sure enough, there was an old fashioned hand pump with a bowl and a bucket beside it.

The traveler filled the bowl and took a long drink himself, then gave some to the dog while he filled the bucket for his horse. When they all were satisfied, he led his horse back toward the man who was standing by the tree waiting for them, the dog following faithfully behind. "What do you call this place?" the traveler asked. "This is heaven," was the answer. "Well, that's confusing," the traveler said. "The man down the road said that was heaven, too." "Oh, you mean the place with the gold street and pearly gates? Nope. That's hell." "Doesn't it make you mad for them to use your name like that?" "No. I can see how you might think so, but we're just happy that they screen out the folks who'll leave their best friends behind".