Showing posts with label captive bolt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label captive bolt. Show all posts

7/31/11

Call on American Veterinary Medical Aassociation to Oppose Horse Slaughter

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.
         __________________________


Read more at www.animallawcoalition.com
 See this Amp at http://bit.ly/qpU0hg
Enhanced by Zemanta

5/21/10

The Humane Slaughter Act of 1958


Captive Bolt
USE OF THE 'PENETRATING CAPTIVE BOLT' AS A MEANS OF RENDERING EQUINES INSENSIBLE FOR SLAUGHTER VIOLATES ‘THE HUMANE SLAUGHTER ACT OF 1958’

I.          The Humane Slaughter Act of 1958

The Humane Slaughter Act ("HSA"), was first enacted in 1958, and amended in 1978 and 2002.  HSA requires slaughterhouses to render livestock unconscious before they are killed.  On May 13, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the "Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002" (Public Law 107-171), which includes a Resolution that the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 should be fully enforced to prevent the needless suffering of animals.  It also calls upon the Secretary of Agriculture to track violations "and report the results and relevant trends annually to Congress."  In January 2004 the General Accounting Office investigated violations of the ‘Humane Methods of Slaughter Act’ which amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act and extended the policy nationwide by requiring that all federally inspected slaughter establishments adopt humane handling and slaughter methods.  The results of the GAO investigation can be found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04247.pdf.

PRIMARY CITATION: 7 USC 1901 – 1907

7 U.S.C.A. § 1901 Findings and Declaration of Policy

The Congress finds that the use of humane methods in the slaughter of livestock prevents needless suffering; results in safer and better working conditions for persons engaged in the slaughtering industry; brings about improvement of products and economies in slaughtering operations; and produces other benefits for producers, processors, and consumers which tend to expedite an orderly flow of livestock and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce. It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United States that the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be carried out only by humane methods.

7 U.S.C.A. § 1902 Humane Methods

No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the United States unless it is humane. Either of the following two methods of slaughtering and handling is hereby found to be humane:

(a) in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or

(b)  by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering.

II.        Captive Bolt/Exsanguination:  Method of Achieving Insensibility Used in the United States

The penetrating captive bolt followed by immediate exsanguination (bleeding out) has been the preferred method of achieving insensibility of equines in American slaughterhouses since the early 1980’s. The mode of action of a penetrating captive bolt gun is concussion and trauma to the brain. This requires that it be held firmly against the surface of the head over the intended site. Because placement and positioning of the projectile is critical, some degree of restraint is required for proper use of this device.

While the destruction of brain tissue with the penetrating captive bolt may be sufficient to result in death, operators are strongly advised to ensure death by exsanguination.


It is important to note that in the foreign owned equine slaughterhouses operating in the United States, no form of restraint is used when the equine is in the kill chute or ‘knock box’ waiting for the penetrating captive bolt to be applied.  In some instances, it takes several attempts to effectively apply the penetrating captive bolt the equine, if this is achieved at all.  The use of the penetrating captive bolt is in violation of 7 U.S.C.A. § 1902 (a) of the Humane Slaughter Act as this methodology requires more than one blow and is inefficient at rendering equines immediately insensible.

(Sources: (i) Dr. Lester Friedlander, DVM and former Chief USDA Inspector, and (ii) Humane Farming Association video documentation at http://www.manesandtailsorganization.org/media.html)  

Use of the captive bolt causes extreme pain.
In a study conducted at Hanover University, EEG and ECG recordings were taken on all animals to measure the condition of the brain and heart during the course of slaughter and stunning.  EEG readings showed that although the animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning with the penetrating captive bolt, they were experiencing severe pain immediately after stunning.
Horses regain consciousness approximately 30 seconds after the captive bolt is applied.

Due to the inherent differences in skull structures of bovines and equines, each species reacts to the captive bolt differently.  The brain of an equine is further back in the skull compared to a bovine.  The equines regain consciousness and are not insensible to pain shortly after they are shackled and hoisted.  Therefore, they are very much aware of being butchered alive.

(Source:  Dr. Lester Friedlander, DVM and former Chief USDA Inspector.)

III.             No Other Methods of Equine Slaughter Comply with the HSA of 1958

(1)       Electrocution – has been defined as 'cruel' by the American Horse Show Association in response to owners who have electrocuted their horses for insurance money. Federal Courts have upheld the Association's contention that electrocution is cruel. Therefore, it cannot be used as a method of humane slaughter for equines.
(2)               Drug Overdose – this method saturates the tissues and leaves residues thereby making the meat inedible.
(3)               Carbon Monoxide – this method saturates the tissues and leaves residues thereby making the meat inedible.
(4)               .22 Caliber Gun Shot – This particular firearm is inappropriate for equines due to the thickness of the skull structure of an equine.  Using the .22 caliber rifle does not achieve instantaneous insensibility of equines.  Larger caliber firearms such as a 9mm or .357 are required to efficiently penetrate the skull and cause the massive brain destruction necessary to achieve instantaneous insensibility. (Source:  Procedures for Humane Euthanasia of Sick, Injured and/or Debilitated Livestock - http://lacs.vetmed.ufl.edu/HumaneEuthanasia/gun.htm).  Additionally, the horse cannot be restrained and this method is dangerous to workers.

IV.       The American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners Positions Regarding Equine Slaughter

Both the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners deem the use of the penetrating captive bolt ‘acceptable.’ The American Veterinary Medical Association 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia evaluated Euthanasia according to this criterion:

(1)       ability to induce loss of consciousness and death without causing pain, distress, anxiety, or apprehension;
(2)       time required to induce loss of consciousness;
(3)       reliability;
(4)       safety of personnel;
(5)       irreversibility;
(6)            compatibility with requirement and purpose;
(7)       emotional effect on observers or operators;
(8)            compatibility with subsequent evaluation, examination, or use of tissue;
(9)       drug availability and human abuse potential;
(10)     compatibility with species, age, and health status;
(11)         ability to maintain equipment in proper working order; and
(12)         safety for predators/scavengers should the carcass be consumed.

The use of the penetrating captive bolt gun does not meet the AVMA Panel's criteria regarding "loss of consciousness and death without causing pain, distress, anxiety, or apprehension."  Unlike bovines (which the penetrating captive bolt was designed for) equines possess different skull structures, are flight animals, and attempt to flee the 'knock box' or 'kill chute.' That being the case, it takes numerous attempts before the animal is properly stunned, if this is achieved at all.

From documentation provided by the Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Farming Association it is clear that these equines are feeling pain due to the number of attempts taken to stun them, and are extremely distressed, anxious, and apprehensive.

This invalidates criteria 1, 2, 3, 6, and 10 of the AVMA's criterion for 'humane euthanasia.'

The AVMA position regarding the use of the penetrating captive bolt is in violation of 7 U.S.C.A. § 1902 (a) of the Humane Slaughter Act as this methodology requires more than one blow and is inefficient at rendering equines insensible.
CONCLUSION

The use of the penetrating captive bolt is in violation of the Humane Slaughter Act generally, and 7 U.S.C.A. § 1902 (a) specifically.  Any other method of slaughter as applied to equines is in violation of the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 generally, and 7 U.S.C.A. § 1902 (a) specifically.

© 2005 Ellen-Cathryn Nash for Manes & Tails Organization with contributions from Vivian Farrell of the Int'l Fund for Horses & Dr. Lester Friedlander, DVM

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

4/20/10

Horse Slaughter Bombshell Hits Belguium And Holland


Horse Slaughter Bombshell in Belgium and Holland
 
Belgian and Dutch consumers were shocked to learn of widespread horse slaughter-related cruelty in North and South America. Undercover video footage aired on three major news programs showed horses designated for slaughter are routinely starved, dehydrated, injured and abused.

Horse meat is commonly available in Belgium and the Netherlands where consumers are almost completely unaware of the cruelties of horse slaughter. Most believe what suppliers claim on their websites, that the meat on their dinner plate comes from contented, grass-eating, healthy horses. The story begins by asking, "Do they [consumers] really know where it comes from?

Horse at Mexican 
plantThe 8½ minute news segment was produced by GAIA, a respected animal welfare organization from Belgium, with much of the footage provided by Animals' Angels USA. The dire conditions of horses at slaughter plants, feedlots and markets in Mexico, Brazil and the U.S., have generated talk of boycotts and moratoriums on the import of horse meat from these countries.
Viewers are told "Cruelty goes hand in hand with incompetence", as undercover video shows a worker knowingly crushing the lower leg of a live horse as he forces the iron gate of an overcrowded trailer shut.
An English version of the story is available on youtube:
WARNING! VERY GRAPHIC!
Consumers responding on television websites demanded action. "They [importers] told us the meat is of superior quality because the animals live a life of luxury and freedom on green pastures...well cared for with plenty of food. But it's a horrible lie."

On importer Chevideco's website, horses are said to be treated with respect horse at slaughter plantand to live without stress. An accompanying photograph depicts well-proportioned horses standing knee deep in grass. Importer such as Visser & van Walsum make similar claims.
 
Within hours of the story's broadcast, supermarkets responded with promises to investigate. Delhaize, the second largest retailer in Belgium asked their supplier to remove affected meat from their shelves. Two other major grocers have told consumers they do not import horse meat from outside Europe.

Fenavian, the Federation of Meat Producers in Belgium, issued a response denying any wrongdoing and offering reassurances that adherence to safety and European Union animal welfare rules were standard practice.

"However, the evidence is quite overwhelming," said Sonja Meadows, president of Animals Angels U.S.  "Up until recently, officials may have been able to claim that to their knowledge, the animals were treated properly. But now such claims are quite obviously false. Unfortunately we have plenty of documentation to prove that animals caught up in the horse slaughter pipeline are horribly abused."

Dead horse BeltexAnimals' Angels' began focusing efforts on the issue of European consumers' awareness about horse slaughter in November 2009 after meeting with the European Commission. AA shared with committee members evidence of extreme cruelty uncovered at Mexican horse slaughter plants, U.S. feedlots and government export facilities. AA filed an official complaint with the commission soon after the meeting.

Last month Gaia asked Animals' Angels for footage from Mexico and the U.S. to help with a European campaign to publicize the conditions endured by horses in the slaughter pipeline. Gaia had recently finished undercover investigations in South America and had gathered their own ample evidence of brutality.

Other organizations in the Netherlands and France are also launching consumer awareness campaigns. Most national and regional newspapers have published the story and photographs. Fueled by concerns from both consumers and animal welfare advocates, many more European news outlets are expected to pick up the story.

"I really doubt I'll ever eat horse meat again," said one man. "They may say they fixed the problem, but I'll never trust them again."

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

4/11/10

No Country For Horses

No Country for Horses

More from Twyla Francois: Selected responses about the transport and slaughter of horses in Canada

Last Updated: Thursday, October 8, 2009 | 1:05 PM ET

The following are selected responses about the transport of horses from the U.S. and the slaughter of horses in Canada from interviews between CBC News reporter Mellissa Fung and Twyla Francois (TF), Regional Director of the Canadian Horse Defense Coalition.

ABOUT BREEDING HORSES AND THE MARKET FOR HORSE MEAT

TF: I think one of the big problems – what I was finding in the feedlots in the States and in Canada – we have a number of them here in Canada and there’s one just down the road from me in Manitoba – they’re breeding (horses) as well, and so there’s this indiscriminate breeding that’s going on. Even with the racehorse industry, they breed hoping for that one-in-a-million horse and all these others end up as surplus. So I think that if there was no more market, if horsemeat becomes illegal and you can’t slaughter them anymore or the market dries up in Europe, because that’s where most of it is going – is France, and Japan, actually, then the industry would have to react. If there’s no market, they’ll just stop all this indiscriminate breeding, because then suddenly there won’t be a dollar value to it.

THE WAY HORSES ARE KILLED

TF: There are only two ways to legally kill a horse in Canada - with a .22 or with a captive bolt pistol. A .22 is much more humane than a captive bolt pistol, because the problem with horses is that they’re very head shy. So when you try to put anything near their head, they’re going to flinch, they’re going to move around. Whereas a .22, it can be aimed at a bit of a distance and it’s a quick, penetrating bolt and they’re gone. But with a captive bolt, it seems that it requires more learning. A captive bolt pistol is a contraption that’s held against a head and a metal bolt comes out, and retracts. And it causes enough damage to the brain that an animal is rendered unconscious quickly. And I have seen it done and it does work, but the difficulty is with horses, they’re head shy. So if you try to put anything near their head, they’re going flinch, they’re going to move, they’re not like a cow. So what we’re wondering is – (when we see dead) horses who don’t have captive boltholes, could they be the ones where the bolt missed? Is it hitting them elsewhere in their face? Is there pressure to continue the line because they’re killing 200 horses a day, which is a massive number of such a large animal, and it takes a long time to process these bodies? So could there be so much pressure that even though they’re not being rendered unconscious, that they’re just pushing them through the line? Bleeding them out while they’re still conscious? We honestly don’t know and the implications are really, really frightening. There’s one method of slaughter that’s being done in Mexico that’s called puntilla, and this is where they use an ice pick and they jab it in the back of the spinal cord. And it doesn’t stop pain. It doesn’t render them unconscious. It just immobilizes them. And I hope this isn’t being used here, but we really have no idea what is being done with these horses.

WHEN THE HORSES SENT TO SLAUGHTER ARE EX-PETS

TF: One of the big issues with horses specifically is a lot of these horses have known human companionship. They seek comfort from us, and it is the ultimate betrayal, that after owning an animal for so long – and at the auctions I see a lot of 20+ year horses – they become injured or they require medical treatment and they’re close to death and the owner knows it’s going to cost quite a bit to bury them, then they’re brought to the auction and these animals are so frightened. You can see them in the ring, that they search the ring looking for a friendly face. We have been comfort for them, and then we take them to slaughter. We see this at the slaughterhouses too, where they’re still seeking out affection from even the slaughterhouse workers themselves. I went to some auctions in Colorado and New Mexico and Texas, and through the States and what we found was a lot of these horses are ex-pets. They’re 20 year-old horses that have been in somebody’s backyard, and then they get ill and it becomes expensive to care of them, expensive to bury them…and so they bring them to auction. But they’re not aware of what they’re inflicting on these horses. And one thing we saw that really broke my heart was, you would see the workers walking by the pens and the horses would rush the pens, looking for comfort from these men who were going to kill them. It just seems like such a betrayal. I think just because of the history of the horse and how they are treated, here in North America and what they’ve experienced in their own life, nothing can prepare them for the journey they have ahead of them after they’ve been given up.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COW AND HORSE SLAUGHTER

TF: There is a large difference because a horse is a flight animal and their immediate response to fear is to run. And this is what we’ve seen with the handling, because if you’re handling cattle, they follow. They just tend to follow one another. They’re quite calm, whereas what we saw with the handling of horses – electric prods are being used. They’re scared, they’re frightened, they’re frantically running one way, and if they come across any kind of barrier, they would all flee back the other way and then they would all whip back over. So it’s just this reaction they have of pure fright. They also are extremely head shy so trying to hit the captive bolt cleanly, to ensure a clean hit, is much more difficult. There’s a much higher risk of having to shoot them multiple times and just that their reaction is very different. They’re a flight animal. The problem is also with the transport issue, that because they’re such a tall animal and we’re still allowing transport on double-deckers – it’s such a grueling, grueling ride for them -15 to 25 hours of not being able to stand upright. It’s a much more difficult ride for a horse.

ABOUT THE REGULATIONS ON HORSE TRANSPORT

TF: The regulations need to be updated. They’re archaic. We’re worse than the United States. Monogastrics like horses and pigs can be transported up to 36 hours with no food or water, and keep in mind that these horses are often coming from the United States, and in the United States, they can be transported up to 28 hours. But the problem is when they hit the border, the clock doesn’t go back to zero - it continues on. So they can literally be doing 50, 60 hours with no food or water or a break.

ON THE ROLE OF THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY

TF: There is always the question of a conflict of interest, because part of their mandate is to encourage the consumption of Canadian foods. But yet they’re supposed to be providing this protective role as well, for our health and for the welfare of animals. But we question whether they can really give welfare what is required, because even if we call a CFIA inspector about an animal, they aren’t authorized to euthanize. So we can have this animal that’s suffering very badly, and we call in the federal authority and they can’t even do anything about it.

ON A HUMANE WAY TO SLAUGHTER A HORSE

TF: For horses in particular, the fear in them is really shocking when you see them in the slaughterplants. So (humane slaughter) would involve not actually being transported, because there are so many problems transporting horses. It would be slaughter on farm, with a mobile slaughter unit, it would be the only way you could more humanely kill a horse. Our concern with the slaughter a horse is it can’t be done humanely. The only way to humanely kill a horse would be to put it down on the farm. And so we really don’t believe that slaughtering horses could ever be made humane.

THE RAISING OF AWARENESS

TF: Something I’ve been discovering is, I don’t think people who have horses really know what the slaughter process is about. If they knew that it wasn’t this very quick overnight – killed instantly – they wouldn’t be sending them. And I think this is something we have to do – is a large education campaign. As Canadians are becoming more aware of this issue, we’re getting rescue shelters popping up all over the place. People care about horses and they don’t like to see this happening to them, and if they hear of any case of suffering – and I get these calls every day. People just don’t want to see horses suffer. So people will respond - they’ll donate, shelters will come up.



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Does this picture upset you? If is does, are you doing anything to have this horror stopped? Show you care! http://www.savingamericashorses.org/home.html

4/1/10

Canada's Chambers of Carnage

A Sweeping Undercover Investigation of Canada's Leading Equine Slaughterhouses

Horse Welfare Group calls for immediate closure of Canada's horse slaughter plants

Westbank, B.C., March 30, 2010: In late February 2010, the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition (CHDC) received hidden camera footage of horse slaughter practices at Quebec's Viande Richelieu and Alberta's Bouvry Exports - the latter known as North America's largest exporter of horsemeat. The CHDC has asked a panel of veterinarians, the BC SPCA and the World Society for the Protection of Animals to review the footage, which contains numerous instances of improper stunning and horses showing signs of returning consciousness.

Early audit results of the footage show automatic failures of both facilities. The CHDC has compelling proof that puts into question the effectiveness of the assembly-line slaughter of horses. The evidence demonstrates that both the facilities in Alberta and Quebec fail to meet humane slaughter standards used by the CFIA to audit Canadian slaughterhouses. The CHDC's June 2008 report on Natural Valley Farms - the now bankrupt horse slaughterhouse in Saskatchewan (see story) documented the inadequate stunning of horses with the penetrating captive bolt gun. At both plants in the February 2010 investigation, a .22 rifle was used, and again horses were shot incorrectly, with some regaining consciousness. As stated by Alberta veterinarian Dr. Debi Zimmermann: "I conclude that the wary and flighty nature of the horse, coupled with the poorly designed kill plant systems currently in place at Bouvry Exports and Viande Richelieu, results in unacceptable levels of suffering endured by horses (both in number of horses and degree of suffering), and poses inherent dangers to plant personnel." Dr. Zimmermann adds: "The shooters are seldom able to adhere to the required protocols for euthanasia by firearm, due to a combination of horse and human factors."

As there are only two government-approved methods of stunning horses in Canada - captive bolt gun and rifle - and both methods have been shown to cause prolonged suffering in numerous horses, we conclude that these animals cannot be slaughtered humanely in today's slaughterhouse assembly lines.

The CHDC therefore calls for the immediate closure of Canada's horse slaughter plants.

For further information, please contact:
Twyla Francois
Central Region Director
T: 204-296-1375

Chambers of Carnage
A Sweeping Undercover Investigation of Canada's Leading Equine Slaughterhouses

In late February 2010, the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition (CHDC) received hidden camera footage of horse slaughter practices at Viande Richelieu in Quebec and Bouvry Exports in Alberta - the latter known as the largest exporter of horsemeat in North America. The CHDC has compelling proof that puts into question the effectiveness of the assembly-line slaughter of horses. The evidence demonstrates that both the facilities in Alberta and Quebec fail to meet humane slaughter standards used by the CFIA to audit Canadian slaughterhouses.

To view compilations of the footage obtained, please scroll down.

WARNING: Content is very graphic and could be disturbing to some viewers.


  • Bouvry Part I of III






  • Bouvry Part II of III




  • Bouvry Part III of III




  • Richelieu Part I of III





  • Richelieu Part II of III








  • Richelieu Part III of III







  • Photo Slideshow





  • For footage indexes, report and photo stills, click links below: Bouvry Index Richelieu Index  


    Statement from World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)
      The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) is appalled by evidence of grossly inhumane slaughter of horses taking place in Canada. We have been sent video footage that is stated to have been taken recently in Bouvry Exports Calgary Ltd slaughterhouse in Fort Macleod, Alberta and Viande Richelieu Inc./Richelieu Meat Inc. slaughterhouse in Massueville, Quebec.  It is clear that neither the facilities nor the behaviour of the personnel shown are suited to the humane slaughter of horses, and that extreme suffering results for many individual animals. Problems include failure to restrain each animal's head properly before shooting, shooting from too great a distance, shooting in the wrong part of the head or body, failure to follow up with an immediate second shot in animals that were not killed by the first, hoisting apparently conscious animals, and - in the case of the Richelieu plant - cruel handling and treatment of the horses, including excessive whipping and overuse of an electric prod as well as an apparent callous disregard for the animals' suffering. An additional cause of very major concern is the presence of what appear to be either plant supervisors or inspectors who observe the employees' actions and yet do nothing.  The WSPA calls on the appropriate authorities to take immediate action to close both these plants down and ensure that those responsible are disciplined. Neither plant should be reopened until or unless they have been redesigned to meet humane slaughter standards, and all staff in contact with these intelligent animals have been trained to treat them with the dignity they deserve.  Furthermore, as we understand that these are the two largest of only four slaughter plants federally registered and licensed to export horse meat abroad, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should revoke their registration as well as any export permits immediately. To ensure that similar problems are not occurring at the two other federally registered horse slaughter plants, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) should commission independent audits of those as soon as possible.  Measures must be taken to ensure that procedures at the slaughterhouse are carried out in accordance with legislation, including the Canadian Meat Inspection Act which requires that all animals should be slaughtered humanely. We understand that slaughter should be overseen by the CFIA. That oversight should guarantee avoidance of practices that inflict extreme pain and suffering on slaughtered animals, such as those witnessed here that affect hundreds of animals. The WSPA would be happy to provide advice on appropriate facilities and training for humane slaughter, if required, to help protect animals from needless suffering. MVDr. Rasto Kolesar Farm Animal Programme Manager WSPA World Society for the Protection of Animals 89 Albert Embankment London SE1 7TP T: 0044 (0)20 7587 5053 F: 0044 (0)20 7587 5057 D: 0044 (0)20 7587 5053 rastokolesar@wspa.org.uk rastokolesar@wspa-international.org Patrick Tohill Programs Manager WSPA Canada World Society for the Protection of Animals 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 960 Toronto, ON M4P 2Y3 p: (416) 369-0044 x104 f: (416) 369-0147 tf: 1-800-363-9772 www.wspa.ca





    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    2/23/10

    We Can't Slaughter our Way To Horse Welfare - May 26, 2009

    This was written before the issue of American horses being unfit for human consumption because of contamination with drugs even came up. 

    “May 26, 2009

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Contact: Duane Burright

    duane_burright@yahoo.com

    We can’t slaughter our way to horse welfare by Duane Burright

    CHICAGO, (EWA) By now everyone is familiar with the subject of horses being neglected or starved, along with the claims from those in agricultural circles that slaughter is “necessary” to prevent horse neglect and that it is a way to dispose of unwanted horses. I’ve been hearing that litany from all of the agricultural publications and blogs, the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), various state Farm Bureaus and from a group of clueless politicians including Illinois Rep. Jim Sacia, Sue Wallis of Wyoming and former Texas congressman and paid slaughter lobbyist, Charles Stenholm.

    I find it odd that they see slaughter as being the solution for horse neglect, but when it comes to neglected or starving cattle, they are stumped. In this USA Today article Starving cattle amid high prices for feed in Neb, Steven Stanec, executive director of the Nebraska Brand Committee, a state agency that helps police the cattle industry stated that “Neglect cases are on the rise, and what’s causing it, I’m not sure. We’re having whole herds of hundreds of cattle being neglected.”

    In doing a simple Google search I found other related headlines which show that cattle starving to death is a fairly widespread problem. Officials raid farm with 30 dead, 100 plus starving cows, Starving cows rescued near Paisley on road to recovery and Starving cattle seized in Lake County.

    According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, 34.4 million cattle were slaughtered in 2008, that’s an average of 94,247 cows slaughtered per day. According to Cattle Network, beef production is up over last year.

    Now with all of those cattle going to slaughter, one would wonder why cattle neglect is happening. Using the logic that the AQHA, AVMA, NCBA, Farm Bureaus and the other proponents of the horse slaughter industry apply to starving or neglected horses that “slaughtering prevents neglect”, one would think that we wouldn’t have problems with starving or neglected cattle. Yet guys like Steven Stanec aren’t sure why cattle neglect cases are on the rise.

    What further weakens the argument that "slaughter is needed to prevent horse neglect" is that while all of these articles have been written about neglected and starving horses, the option of horse slaughter has been available in the United States. Horse owners can take the horses they no longer want to keep to the local livestock auction and the neighborhood friendly kill buyers will happily take the horse off their hands.

    According to statistics from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 134,059 American horses have been slaughtered at the European owned plants in Canada and Mexico in 2008. American horses still continue to go to slaughter as you read this, so the slaughter pipeline continues to function despite the claims to the contrary.

    The reality is that slaughter has nothing to do with animal welfare. Since slaughter apparently doesn’t magically solve the problem of starving and neglected cattle, it is fallacy to think that slaughter will solve the problem of starving and neglected horses. The problem of cattle being neglected is due to the current economic crisis, that same economic crisis is making it difficult for horse owners.

    In fact, a study released in June of 2008 showed there was no correlation between horse slaughter and neglect, but a clear linkage between unemployment and neglect. Prophetically, the study warned in its conclusions that if economic conditions continued to deteriorate an upward trend in neglect could be expected.

    The AQHA, AVMA, NCBA, Farm Bureaus and all of their political allies put a lot of time, energy and money into supporting horse slaughter. If these special interest groups were to focus all of those resources on solving the nation’s economic problems rather than supporting a foreign owned industry that doesn't even pay their taxes, we might be able to get something done.

    It is a pity they are so narrow minded.

    Duane Burright is a software engineer by trade, aside from horses and their welfare he’s also interested in American musclecars, vintage electric fans, computers and software design. He has been involved in the campaign to make the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (AHSPA) law since 2003 and is a supporter of a nearby wild horse sanctuary.”

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    2/1/10

    A Study of Equine Slaughter/ Abuse Patterns Following Closure of Horse Slaughter Plants in US

    Joyce Jacobson, researcher; John Holland, senior analyst AAHS; and Darrell R. Charlton Jr., researcher, © All rights reserved

    Introduction


    Horse slaughter has become a hotly contested issue in the United States in the past year. A large number of articles have appeared in the print media claiming that the closings of the three US based horse slaughter plants, all of which were foreign owned, in 2007 caused crisis levels of horse abuse and neglect and even wide scale abandonment of horses. None of these articles, however, cites any evidence for these claims beyond opinion or the occasional anecdotal story.
    The purpose of this study is to document trends that have occurred in the wake of the closing of horse slaughter plants in the United States, to include the numbers of horses slaughtered and where they were slaughtered during the study period. This period was selected to include one year before the first closings to provide a baseline. The further goal was to establish what effect, if any, the closings of the US based plants might have had upon the frequency of abuse and neglect.

    Background

    All three of the foreign owned horse slaughter plants operating in the United States were closed under state laws during 2007. On January 19th, 2007, a federal appeals court overturned a lower court decision and ruled that a 1949 Texas law prohibiting the sale of horse meat was constitutional and valid. Although the two Texas plants continued to slaughter for some weeks under an appeal to the Supreme Court, they ceased operations in February when the airlines refused to ship horse meat to their customers in Europe.
    The Texas plants had been responsible for more than half of all the horses slaughtered in the United States. Within weeks of their closings, the Cavel plant in Illinois increased their production to take advantage of the opportunity.
    On May 24, an Illinois law prohibiting horse slaughter went into effect. After closing briefly, the Cavel plant appealed the decision and reopened under a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order).
    At the federal level, an amendment to the 2006 Agriculture budget had been passed with the goal of closing all US horse slaughter plants by removing USDA funding for their required ante-mortem inspections. This amendment, which should have taken affect in March of 2006, was sidestepped by the USDA when it instituted a pay-for-inspections program.
    The USDA program was the immediate subject of a law suit but the plan was allowed to continue under another TRO as the suit worked its way through the court system. The lower court decided against the USDA as did the appeals court. The result was that the Cavel plant closed briefly on several occasions before slaughter ended there on September 20th of 2007 under the new Illinois law.

    Data sources

    Several data sources were used for this study, including the Illinois Department of Agriculture, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Illinois Department of Agriculture (ILDA) and the online database http://www.pet-abuse.com/.

    Limitations

    There are several complicating factors in gathering and analyzing the data available. The most comprehensive data available is from the USDA and the CFIA. While these statistics give accurate numbers for horses slaughtered in the US last year, as well as exports by country, the US numbers are not differentiated between the three plants that were operating in January of 2007. These were the Cavel plant in Dekalb, Illinois, the BelTex plant in Fort Worth, Texas, and the Dallas Crown plant in Kaufman, Texas.
    The biggest challenge is in obtaining and properly interpreting data on abuse and neglect. The first problem is that there is no way of knowing directly how many equines are being abused or neglected. The only metric available is the number of cases of abuse and neglect that are charged. Additionally, not all cases charged result in a guilty verdict, and the fact that a case does not result in such a verdict may be for reasons other than culpability.
    Another issue in regard to charged cases is that they can take months or years to work their way through the court system. Therefore, this study uses each case on the date it was charged, whether or not it results in a guilty verdict, with the assumption that this metric will average out to be roughly proportional to true abuse levels over time. The study period is sufficiently brief that significant changes in law enforcement vigilance over its course are unlikely and the data should be valid for determining trends.
    Moreover, very few states keep centralized data on equine abuse and neglect cases charged, and those that do keep it in a variety of formats. This study will look at one such state and analyze the correlation between its data and other metrics including slaughter rates and economic conditions for reasons that will become clear in the analysis.
    The only centralized database that tracks all states is http://www.pet-abuse.com/. There are significant limitations to this data source and they will be discussed in a later section. Since these limitations could draw doubt as to their validity, a significant effort was made to verify and otherwise test the data extracted from the database. This will be discussed in more detail in the section dealing with that analysis.

    Historical Perspective

    Before looking at the data for 2006 and 2007, it is useful to gain a historical perspective on horse slaughter. While it is widely known that horse slaughter was at much higher levels in 1990 than in recent years, it is less well known that the United States has been exporting horses to slaughter in Mexico and Canada for this entire period, and to Japan since 1999.
    Canadian and Mexican horse slaughter operations are quite different in nature. Canadian horse slaughter plants ship most of their product to Europe with a smaller fraction being consumed domestically. In Europe the meat is considered a delicacy and it brings relatively high prices. The plants tend to be similar to US plants because they must meet EU (European Union) approval.
    Horse slaughter is more common in Mexico than in the US. There are two types of plants in Mexico; EU suppliers and domestic suppliers. There are two EU supplier plants located in central Mexico at the towns of Jerez and Fresnillo. In contrast there are dozens of smaller local plants throughout Mexico that are owned by the municipalities and that supply horsemeat for local consumption. Unlike the European consumers, the Mexican consumers view horsemeat as an inferior substitute for beef and it is often used as filler.
    Figure 1
                                                                               Figure 1
    Figure 1 shows the number of US equines slaughtered and exported for slaughter each year since 1989, as well as the countries to which they were exported. There are several notable features about this data. The most often referenced feature is the famous steep decline in total slaughter between 1990 and 2002. There were over ten slaughter plants in the United States in the late 1980s and only three by the 2000.
    Anti-slaughter proponents have long found this decline their most unassailable argument against the claim that slaughter protects horses from abuse and neglect. They argue that since slaughter decreasing by 81% did not bring about a crisis of horse neglect, ending it would not have such consequences either. This argument has yet to be countered in a meaningful way by those who espouse the theory that only "unwanted" horses are slaughtered. The question remains, however, whether the decline occurred because of supply limitations, legislation, market demand or other causes.
    The possibility that the decrease was caused by limitations of supply is easily discounted by horse population studies1. During this period the horse population of the US grew by 3 to 5% per year.
    The effect of legislation on this decline is minimal but should be mentioned. Between 1989 and 1998 there were no legislative restrictions on the slaughter of horses in the United States. In 1998, after slaughter had already dropped from over 400,000 equines a year to under 100,000, California passed proposition 6 which banned the slaughter of horses and the export of horses from the state for purposes of slaughter. Since there were no slaughter plants operating in California at the time, there was no noticeable impact on the total slaughter in the United States. Despite many legislative initiatives, no other legislation affected slaughter until early 2007.
    We can see from the export curves in Figure 1 that the overall decline was almost entirely driven by the decline in US slaughter and a parallel decline in exports to Canada. This parallel tracking phenomenon can be seen more clearly if we change the scale on the exports to Canada as shown in Figure 2.
    Figure 2
    Figure 2
    Exports to Canada tracked US slaughter during the precipitous decline of the 1990s in stark contrast to exports to Mexico. Since US and Canadian slaughter plants share the same customer base in Europe, this leads to the implication that slaughter and export to slaughter are driven primarily by market demand and not the supply of "unwanted" horses. If supply had been driving the market we would have seen similar patterns in exports to Mexico.
    Finally, an Italian study6 of horse meat consumption confirms that it followed the same trend as US slaughter during that study period between 1995 and 2001. This further indicates that demand in Europe was likely the strongest determinant of US slaughter levels. Interestingly, this study will show that there may have been yet another component to the famous decline of the 90s.
    The only other notable non-market influences on the reduction of slaughter were the burning of Cavel West in Redmond Oregon by arson on July 21st, 1997 and the burning of Cavel East in Dekalb Illinois by accidental causes on Easter Sunday of 2002. Cavel in Dekalb was rebuilt and was back in operation by the summer of 2004.
    The burning of Cavel in Illinois came just as slaughter had ebbed and was beginning an upward trend that has continued to date. The relationship of abuse and neglect to slaughter during the period surrounding the burning of Cavel East was the subject of an earlier study2. Ironically, the burning of Cavel appears to have saved approximately 50,000 horses while we will see later that the closing of all of the US based plants in 2007 saved only about 22,000 horses from slaughter.
    The other two features of interest in the graph of Figure 1 concern exports to Mexico and Canada. Much has been made of the "unintended consequences" of driving slaughter over the border to Mexico and Canada, and later graphs will show that has indeed been the case. However, Figure 1 exposes the little known fact that these current export levels are not historically unique.
    Particular focus has been placed on Mexican exports because of the barbaric slaughter methods used in some of their local plants (as documented by undercover videos by HSUS and others). While Mexican exports accelerated dramatically after the plant closings in 2007, they also spiked in 1994 when domestic slaughter in the US was at levels over 100,000 horses per year. Likewise, exports to Canada were higher between 1991 and 1994 than in 2007.
    Thus while it is true that the closing of the US based horse slaughter plants in 2007 drove American horses over the borders to Canada and Mexico, the converse is not true and domestic slaughter has not historically protected American horses from going to these countries in similar numbers.

    Slaughter trends following US plants closures

    As previously mentioned, all three slaughter plants in the US were closed during the year 2007. The two Texas plants ceased operations in February and the Illinois plant in late September. Figure 3 shows the resulting slaughter patterns from January of 2006 through March of 2008.
    Figure 3
                                                                                     Figure 3
    As can be seen from the red curve in Figure 3, the overall slaughter of US horses (domestic slaughter + exports) did not drop as dramatically as might be expected following any of the closings, even though domestic (US) slaughter did decline steeply following both the Texas plant closings in February and the Cavel closing in September.
    The two temporary interruptions in Cavel operations discussed earlier can clearly be seen in the dips in April and again in July. Despite this, the industry had completely recovered to its peak slaughter levels by late September when Cavel slaughtered its last horse.
    Two things happened during this period. First, Cavel ramped up its operations from its design capacity of 500 horses per week to well over 1,000. There is evidence that this ramp up had already begun well before the closings and was simply accelerated. This volume offset losses during the two interruptions and from the Texas plant closings. Secondly, Cavel management began making arrangements to move their operations over the border to Canada. When they were finally closed in September it took only weeks for Cavel to begin slaughtering operations at the Natural Valley Farms in Wolseley (SK) Canada.
    The curve of Mexican exports (blue) shows an interesting and little known fact. Mexican exports had already been increasing since mid-2006, well before the Texas plants were closed. During the months following the Texas plant closings these exports continued with an even more rapid increase. This increase was boosted for a period of several months as BelTex dumped thousands of horses from its feedlot in Morton, Texas to slaughter plants over the border.
    By September of 2007, the glut of horses from Texas feed lots had been exhausted and the exports to Mexico had begun to decline. This decline was partially offset by the continued strong flow of horses to Canada. By March of 2008 exports to Canada were approximately 50% higher than those to Mexico.
    Figure 4 demonstrates how incredibly quickly Canada slaughter houses absorbed US horses. Remarkably, Canada more than doubled its equine slaughter in a single month. This was done by converting existing beef processing plants that had been struggling to compete with US beef slaughter plants. Some of these facilities had been built in response to the closing of the US border to Canadian beef due to an earlier mad cow outbreak in Canada. The number of slaughterhouses processing horses in Canada rose from three at the beginning of 2007 to seven at the end of the study period.
    Figure 4

    Figure 4
    We can see from Figure 4 that Canada now depends on the US for the vast majority of the equines it slaughters. Before the closing of Cavel about 50% of the horses slaughtered in Canada were from the US, but between the closing and the end of the study period, 79.5% of all the equines slaughtered in Canada came from the US. (It should be noted that USDA numbers for horses exported to Canada for slaughter are considerably higher than the US import numbers released by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. The USDA numbers appear to be the correct ones given their correlation with CFIS slaughter statistics as shown in Figure 4.)
    To help illustrate what happened with the slaughter of American horses, Figure 5 provides a year to year comparison of the total slaughter of US horses for 2006, 2007 and the first quarter of 2008.
    Figure 5
    Figure 5
    The 2006 (yellow) line represents the baseline year before any of the slaughter plants were closed. The blue line represents the slaughter rate during 2007, and the magenta line represents slaughter for the first quarter of 2008. This method of comparison is commonly used in accounting and government reporting because it provides year to year comparisons that take into account seasonal trends.
    There was a significant but largely temporary drop in the 2007 slaughter level following the closings of the Texas plants in February. The slaughter rate then lagged below the 2006 levels until September when it reached parity just in time for the closing of the last US based plant (Cavel). Although slaughter again fell below 2006 levels in the last quarter of 2007, by the first quarter of 2008 it had returned to the same levels as both the previous years. The gap between the 2006 and 2007 curves represents the temporary reduction in slaughter and thus the number of horses spared from slaughter.

    Summary of slaughter trends

    While the slaughter of US horses and other equines dipped during 2007, it quickly returned to the same levels as before the plant closings. There were 122,459 US equines slaughtered or exported for slaughter in 2007 compared to 142,720 in 2006, a reduction of only 17% for the year. By the first quarter of 2008 the exports to Mexico and Canada had entirely replaced the reductions in US slaughter.
    Returning to the stated purpose of this study, the desire was to determine whether the closing of the slaughter plants was a possible causative factor in any subsequent increase in abuse and neglect. The only mechanism by which this could have happened would have been if the closings caused a significant and sustained change in slaughter volumes. Since the resulting reduction in slaughter was quickly replaced by exports, there is no ongoing volume impact from the closings, and therefore no possibility it could significantly affect abuse levels.
    The only increase in abuse caused by the closings has been the longer trips and more brutal slaughter conditions that the horses are subjected to.

    Abuse, Neglect and Abandonment

    At this point it has been established that any increase in equine abuse and neglect must be the result of factors other than the slaughterhouse closings, such as economic and weather (forage) conditions. The year 2007 saw declines in the economy, especially in the second half of the year and serious increases in feed and hay costs. The question is whether these factors did indeed cause a dramatic increase in abuse and neglect.
    As discussed in the introduction, quantifying abuse and neglect is a much less exact science than tracking slaughter. Fortunately, there is no need to put too fine an edge on any conclusions drawn from the available data. The stated purpose of this study is to simply establish whether or not a "tsunami" or even a significant increase in equine abuse had occurred as has been claimed by some articles.

    Abandoned Horses

    If reliable data quantifying abuse and neglect is difficult to find, data concerning "abandoned horses" is even more problematic. This is largely because state and local governments do not recognize such a category. The closest data is on "Estray" horses, which reflects the fact that it is almost impossible to determine whether a horse was intentionally released or simply escaped, and only a few states track even this data. As a result, almost every story must be tracked down individually.
    The first story about abandoned horses appeared in the mainstream press just weeks after the closing of the Texas plants. The story titled Kentucky, Land of the Thoroughbred, Swamped with Unwanted Horses, was written by Jeffrey McMurray, a college basketball stringer for the Associated Press (AP). The piece was based on horses seen free grazing on a reclaimed strip mine in Eastern Kentucky and claimed they had been abandoned because of reductions in horse slaughter forced by animal rights activists.
    However, the slaughter rates shown in Figure 1 contradict McMurray's claim of decreasing slaughter in the years between 2002 and 2007 and the Texas plants had been closed for only a month when the story appeared. More tellingly, it was determined that the "abandoned" horses were in fact owned by Trish Hayes of Breaks Riding Stables in Breaks Virginia. The horses had been the subject of an earlier AP story when teenaged boys were charged with shooting some of them. But by that time the story had gone international and many writers still reference the story as if it were valid.
    In October a second AP story appeared in the Oregonian titled Abandoned Horses a Dilemma for Ranchers. That story claimed nine horses had been abandoned on the ranch owned by a Mr. McKenzie, but the Malheur County Incident Detail4 (police report) later showed that the incident had involved only one horse reported by Mr. McKenzie's granddaughter and it was determined to be unfounded.
    To this day stories continue to surface in respectable publications that contend there is an abandoned horse crisis in America. Yet research into individual cases3 has determined that very few are accurate and even then they involved fewer horses than reported.
    Only a few sparsely populated western states even keep records of estray horses. Of the states that do keep accurate records, the trends are mixed but largely flat. The largest documented increase found in Estray horses was in Arizona5 which reported a 16% increase from 2006 to 2007. As a matter of reference, that translates to an increase of only about 16 horses statewide or 8 more than the three-year average.
    The picture that emerges for horses is very different than that for dogs and cats, where abandonment is common. Any owner who would simply release a horse from its pasture is aware that there is a significant liability if that animal causes a traffic accident, and dropping a horse off at a distance from its home requires the ownership of a horse trailer or the collaboration of someone who does own one. It is not an easy crime to commit or conceal.
    As a result, true horse abandonment appears to be rare. The more common method of abandoning a horse is to simply leave it to forage in its pasture without medical care or supplemental feed. Thus it was determined that the focus of this study would be on abuse and neglect where there is at least some statistical evidence.

    Abuse and Neglect

    Again, the analysis of trends in abuse and neglect was complicated by the fact that data is not available in a consistent manner from different sources. The picture that emerged, however, was that while some areas had indeed seen significant increases in abuse and neglect cases, others had, in fact, seen declines.
    For example, there was a severe drought in much of the South during 2007, which drove hay prices up in some areas by 100% and more. Texas on the other hand, which had experienced several years of devastating drought, hay shortages and wildfires, enjoyed an abundant hay crop in 2007. More over, there have been significant fluctuations in the economy during the study period.
    One of the states where good data was available and where a notable increase in abuse and neglect cases had occurred was, ironically, Illinois. Illinois was the only state in the US where slaughter occurred for most of 2007. In 2006, a study of the relationship between abuse and neglect in Illinois and total slaughter in the US 2 found that on average more slaughter was accompanied by more abuse. The variation was so great year to year, however, that the study concluded there was no meaningful relationship between the two.
    Figure 6 revisits this comparison with the hindsight of two additional years of data. If a reduction in slaughter caused an increase in abuse and neglect, we would expect the two curves to be mirror images of each other. Looking at the two curves in Figure 6, it is clear that there is no consistent correlation between the sets of data.
    There are two notable features to the curve of abuse cases (blue); a remarkable increase in abuse between 2000 and 2002, and another steep increase in 2007. The Cavel plant in Illinois burned on Easter Sunday of 2002. The next year the abuse rate flattened. Had this slaughter been preventing abuse we would have expected the curve to increase in steepness. The original study done in 2006 speculated that the changes in abuse were more likely the result of economic or weather conditions, but did not attempt to establish this correlation partially because the data set was limited at that time.
    Figure 6
    Figure 6
    If, however, we now look at the abuse and neglect data from Illinois with respect to unemployment in the state, we see a very interesting correlation between upward trends in the two sets of data (Figure 7).
    Figure 7
    Figure 7
    Although the upward slopes of the abuse and unemployment data have an uncanny correlation in the periods between 2000 and 2002, and in 2007, the downward trend of unemployment between 2003 and 2006 does not appear to be mirrored by a corresponding downward trend in abuse and neglect.
    At first this lack of downward correlation appears to cast doubt on just how strong the relationship is, but that is due (at least in part) to a distortion in the way the government tracks unemployment.
    A person is only considered to be "unemployed" while he or she is receiving unemployment compensation. People whose benefit period has expired before they get a new job are removed from the "unemployment" roles and from the statistics just as if they had found a job.
    This trick of accounting biases the numbers by amplifying downward trends (good news) in unemployment. In other words, the downward trend in unemployment is exaggerated and may in fact be nonexistent. For example, if nobody at all got a job, every large increase in unemployment would be followed by an equal downward trend as benefits ran out.
    Therefore, in reality, the shape of the true unemployment curve would probably be even more like the shape of the abuse and neglect curve.
    The Illinois data supports the obvious conclusion that bad economic conditions lead to more abuse and neglect. This should come as no surprise, but the fact that slaughter does not affect abuse and neglect in a positive way (if any at all), may be surprising to the advocates of the "unwanted horse" theory about slaughter's beneficial contribution to the negation of abuse.

    Measuring Nationwide Abuse and Neglect

    The final question that remained to be answered was whether or not there was a major increase in abuse and neglect nationwide in 2007. The only source of such data nationwide is the online database of pet-abuse.com.
    The data on this site is well organized for research, but there are significant limitations to its use. Data is entered as abuse cases are flagged from other media sources. If a case is not mentioned in the media immediately, it might not be represented in the data until months or even years after charges are first placed. The data thus has a tendency to "back fill" and one can safely assume that the more recent the data is the more likely it is to be understated.
    The usefulness of this data becomes lower as one attempts to determine recent trends or to determine trends over shorter periods. Additionally, in any given month the data may consist of only a dozen or fewer cases, making short term trends more difficult. These difficulties and assumptions will be discussed further when the data is presented.
    Several tests were performed to determine the data distortion caused by latency and backfilling of the data in the database. The period between September 2007 and January 10th 2008 was initially analyzed within days after the end of the period. It was again analyzed at two occasions a few months apart. Based on this comparison it was determined that the backfill issue was statistically insignificant after three months. Final data collection was performed three months after the end of the study period.
    The journalistic nature of the data also presented issues. For example, some cases did not include the exact number of equines, but instead used variable terms (e.g., "several"). For purposes of uniformity, these descriptions were converted to numbers using a defined constant. For example, the word "several" was replaced with the number 6 and the word "dozens" was translated as 24. In any event, these cases were not common enough to significantly skew the results.
    Both the number of cases and the number of equines involved in those cases are presented. It can be seen that the two roughly track each other. Again, the analysis of abuse was only used to determine if there had been a dangerous rise in abuse and neglect overall.
    Finally, only cases of owner abuse and neglect were included in the statistics. Cases involving third party abuse were not included as the motive for such abuse is outside the purposes of this study. The results of this search yielded the graph in Figure 8.
    Figure 8
    Figure 8
    As expected, the data was somewhat inconsistent on a month to month basis, but one obvious conclusion can be drawn. There clearly was NOT a catastrophic increase in abuse and neglect during 2007. Other conclusions that might be drawn are a bit more risky since they might possibly be putting too fine an edge on the analysis. There appears to have been a slight drop in abuse after March and a slight upturn at the beginning of 2008.
    Figure 9
    Figure 9
    Finally, it is useful to test this graph against the nationwide unemployment rates to see if the unemployment rates could have predicted something close to what we saw from the pet-abuse.com database. Figure 9 shows that comparison. A drop in the unemployment rate is apparent in late 2006, and from June onward there was an upward trend to unemployment.
    There are obvious reasons why the nationwide unemployment number is a less than perfect barometer for nationwide equine abuse even if the two are closely correlate on a regional level. For example, the average unemployment does not take into account the fact that some states have larger horse populations than others and unemployment varies significantly between states. Weighting each state was beyond the scope of this study.
    Even so, there are some interesting similarities between the unemployment curve in Figure 9 and the abuse case rate as determined from Pet-Abuse.com. A drop in unemployment occurred slightly before a similar drop in abuse. (Note that a drop following a relatively flat period is less likely to be an artifact than one following a recent up surge). Except for a spike in cases that occurred in March, the comparison would have been even clearer, but as previously stated the abuse data is very noisy when observed short term. Similarly, a general upward trend in unemployment later in 2007 seems to have preceded the upward trend in abuse during the last quarter of the study (first quarter of 2008).
    The Illinois comparison was performed on a year to year basis which did not expose this lag of a few months. The identified lag is logically to be expected since most neglect cases take several months to become apparent (horses don't starve overnight) and then to be acted upon by authorities.
    The fact that unemployment is a general barometer of trends in equine abuse and neglect is not surprising as it has long been known to have the same relationship to domestic abuse and child abuse. In the case of horses, however, it gives us a historical view into the probable number of horses that were at risk of neglect and thus "unwanted" by the definition of slaughter advocates. Unemployment is thus also an approximate barometer of the number "unwanted" horses and this fact allows us to see if slaughter has historically increased when this barometer was rising.
    Figure 10
    Figure 10
    Figure 10 explores the relationship between horse slaughter and the unemployment barometer of abuse and neglect. To have a beneficial effect, slaughter would have to rise following increases in unemployment but during this decade it has done just the opposite. The same antithetical relationship existed in the 1980s and until about 1993.
    However, from 1993 through 2000, the unemployment rate began a continuous decline during a well known period of prosperity. It is entirely likely that this decrease, combined with the increasing number of horses being kept in the population put supply side pressure on the slaughter industry just as demand was faltering. There were plenty of horses, but their owners were not willing to sell them at slaughter prices, and new owners probably outbid kill buyers for surplus horses from racing and other horse industries. The result was a "perfect storm" for the horse slaughter industry which produced the famous long decline.
    The implication is that the horse slaughter industry may operate on a thin margin on supply side price. This implication was recently tested when Pure Thoughts Horse Rescue (PTHR) attended the famous Sugar Creek slaughter Auction in Ohio. At most their weekly auctions the bulk of the horses go to slaughter, but PTHR, financed by a benefactor, was able to outbid the kill buyers on every horse. The average price paid was $432, not significantly above the average price seen for slaughter horses.

    Conclusions

    Despite the difficulties posed by the data limitations discussed, several conclusions about slaughter and abuse and neglect trends can be stated with confidence:
    1. While the supply of low priced horses is essential to the slaughter industry, it does not determine the number that will be slaughtered. That number is set by the demand for horse meat in Europe. Slaughter therefore is useless as a tool for controlling the unwanted horse population and instead simply creates a low end market that competes with potential buyers of low end horses and encourages a continuous supply.
    2. The rate of slaughter of US horses was only temporarily affected by the closings of the US based slaughter plants in 2007, and the slaughter rate has since returned to its previous levels. There was therefore no mechanism by which these closings could have impacted abuse and neglect.
    3. There was clearly no epidemic of abuse and neglect in 2007 following the closings of the US based horse slaughter plants. None was predicted by the unemployment numbers and none was found in the database of cases. In other words, on the question of whether the closings were the cause of a pronounced increase in abuse we find that neither the cause nor the effect actually happened.
    4. While US slaughter rates are clearly driven by the demand for horse meat in Europe, it appears the industry operates in a relatively narrow window of supply price. If we are to accept that horses sent to slaughter are "unwanted" then we can define an unwanted horse not as one with zero value but one whose value is greater to the slaughter industry than to a potential owner and that average value is probably under $500.
    5. Abuse and neglect is largely determined by economic conditions. An upturn in unemployment seen in late 2007 appears to have translated into the beginning of an upturn in abuse and neglect in early 2008. As of the end of the study period, abuse and neglect did not appear to have exceeded norms for the baseline year of 2006, but to the extent that the economic conditions continue to deteriorate, this trend may become more worrisome in the months to come.

    References

    1.      Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Study, David W. Freeman, Oklahoma Horse Industry Trends, Historic Estimates of Horse Numbers in US and OK. http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2087/CR-3987web.pdf
    2.      A Study of the Relationship Between Horse Slaughter and Reported Cases of Abuse and Neglect. John M. Holland, 23 January 2006
    3.      Deleting the Fiction: Abandoned Horses http://www.commonhorsesense.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=1 Terry Torrence, John Holland and Valerie James-Patton
    4.      Malheur County Sheriff Office, Incident # 01-2007-05662, Wolfe, Brian E, 11/27/2007
    5.      Email correspondence with Ed Hermes, Public Information Officer Arizona Department of Agriculture
    6.      Characteristics of Horse Meat Consumption and Production in Italy, F. Martuzzi, A.L. Catalano, C. Sussi

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
    "From my earliest memories, I have loved horses with a longing beyond words." ~ Robert Vavra