Showing posts with label horses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horses. Show all posts

8/19/12

Secy. Vilsack - USDA Cannot Enforce Horse Slaughter Laws

Posted Aug 17, 2012 by lauraallen

USDA/FSIS Cannot Meet the Legal Requirements for the Return of Horse Slaughter to the U.S.

Dear Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack:

The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) Administrator, Alfred Almanza, has been quoted as saying that the agency is moving quickly to accommodate two pending applications to open horse slaughter plants in the U.S. Though as I understand since then, the applicant in New Mexico has withdrawn the application, and the Missouri applicant is beset with legal problems and was apparently not even the owner of the property proposed for the horse slaughter facility and cannot acquire any ownership interest.

Regardless, a horse slaughter proponent is circulating a "petition" to urge FSIS to move more quickly in approving applications and make inspectors available for horse slaughter for human consumption. The USDA has a number of legal obligations when it comes to slaughtering equines for human consumption; USDA cannot meet any of these obligations and for this and economic, environmental and other health and safety reasons, should not allow horse slaughter.

Substantial Taxpayer Costs with No Economic Benefit

As the U.S. struggles to climb out of the most devastating economic recession since the Great Depression, it is puzzling why FSIS would take funds from an already depleted budget to use for a program to inspect horses to be slaughtered for human consumption. Surely, the threats to food safety and humane treatment of animals are already significant with a reduced budget. Why would any funds be used for a program that results in no economic benefit to the U.S. and instead threatens the health and safety of our local communities and equines?

Prior to the closure of the 3 horse slaughter plants in 2007, FSIS spent approximately $5,000,000 annually for inspectors, basically subsidizing the three foreign-owned (Belgian and French) horse slaughterhouses. Americans don't eat equines so there were no sales of horsemeat domestically and thus no sales tax revenues from slaughter. Horse slaughter facilities pay virtually no income taxes. One facility operating in Texas prior to 2007 paid $5 in federal income tax one year on $12 million dollars in sales. In the preceding 5 years the federal income tax was .3% or 1/3 of 1% of gross revenues or sales. A forensic analysis of the tax returns revealed that the company avoided U.S. income taxes by selling the horsemeat at a loss to an entity it owned in another country and then that entity distributed the product overseas at substantial profit. With no sales or distribution in the U.S. and no tax revenue, there is simply no benefit to the U.S. economy from horse slaughter.

The property tax revenue to Kaufman, Texas where a horse slaughter facility operated until 2007 was generally less than $2,000 per year, a mere pittance when compared to the city's costs for pursuing the facility's continual violations of its wastewater permit and in working to address violations of regulations of Texas Dept. of Health and the Commission on Environmental Quality. The city's legal fees just to address issues related to the horse slaughter plant exceeded its entire budget for legal fees in one year. The city was even fined by the TCEQ for the plant's failure to comply with backflow regulations that meant horse blood and waste backed up into sinks, toilets and tubs. When the plant finally closed, the city was left with nearly $100,000 in unpaid fines for wastewater permit violations.

The situation was no different at the horse slaughter plant in Ft. Worth and the other in DeKalb, Illinois. In DeKalb, the horse slaughter facility had waste permits that allowed contamination levels for waste water that were eight times higher than usual. Yet, the facility was out of compliance hundreds of times. It was not a matter of having old facilities. The owner, Cavel International, built a state-of-the-art pre-treatment system that became operational in 2004. The facility remained out of compliance with its permit regularly until it finally closed in 2007. The blood and waste from slaughtered horses oozed from the state of the art tanks. There were also hundreds of FSIS violations.

The same was true of Canadian Natural Valley Farms where a 2008 investigation revealed the state of the art waste pre-treatment facility overflowed as well with blood and waste, and large amounts of waste and blood were dumped into nearby rivers. When the state of the art facility was shut down, the community was left with environmental contamination and a bankrupt company that claimed $42 million in losses.

None of this includes the plummeting property values, loss of new business, increased crime rates and a general stench and pall that hung over the communities. All courtesy of the horse slaughter plant. This is what President Obama's USDA wants for American communities?

If horse slaughterhouses are allowed to re-open, they would again be subsidized by American taxpayers. Estimates are that the U.S. government would spend at least $3,000,000-5,000,000 annually to subsidize private horse slaughter facilities.

On top of that, the USDA could give foreign owners of U.S. horse slaughter facilities, such as Bouvry, the Canadian company that has explored the possibility of opening a horse slaughter plant near Stanwood, Washington, or the Belgian company, Chevideco, which claims it may contribute to the building of a horse slaughter house in Oregon or Missouri, a subsidized loan of $750,000 through the RUS World Utilities Services.

Mr. Vilsack, it is outrageous that the American taxpayer should support wealthy investors in a business that profits from animal cruelty, benefits only foreign interests and wrecks the U.S. communities where the facilities are located. This money would surely be much better spent on American interests. It would seem more appropriate for USDA to focus on the live horse industry worth $112.1 billion of gross domestic product.

Few Low Wage Jobs

The argument that significant jobs would be created is specious. Horse slaughter plants operating until 2007 never created more than 178 low wage jobs -and many of these were held by illegal aliens. When horse slaughter plants operated in the U.S., this meant workers and their families overran local resources like the hospitals and government services. It meant low income housing and a decline in the overall standard of living.

Slaughter Contributes to Numbers of Horses in Need

Slaughter proponents have widely claimed that slaughter is somehow an alternative for "unwanted" horses. Nothing could be further from the truth. Slaughter actually creates a salvage or secondary market that enables overbreeding and poor breeding practices. Slaughter and a poor economy have resulted in horses in need. Slaughter is driven by a demand for horsemeat in some foreign countries; it is not a "service" for unwanted horses and that is why, as one of your department's own studies confirms, most horses, 92.3%, are healthy when they are sent to slaughter. Kill buyers are interested in buying the healthiest horses for horsemeat that 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 slaughterhouses that were located in the U.S. It is the availability of slaughter that actually increases the numbers of excess horses and other equines on the market. 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 makes no sense for anyone to suggest a limited salvage market could influence prices in the entire horse industry.

The Live Horse Industry

Again, it is the live horse industry that USDA should support. Most horses end up at slaughter because they are purchased by kill buyers. Many horses could have easily been purchased by someone else other options include adoption programs, placing them as pasture mates/babysitters to a younger horse, donating them for use in horse therapy, or placing them in a retirement home.

Humane Euthanasia is Available and Affordable

Also, about 900,000 horses are humanely euthanized in the U.S. each year. The infrastructure could easily absorb those sent to slaughter. The average cost of humane euthanasia including the farm call and either burial, rendering or placement in a landfill can be as little as $50 depending on the method used, and at most $400.

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act Unenforceable for Equines

The USDA is responsible for enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, 7 USC Sec. 1902(a)("HMSA"). USDA/FSIS failed miserably at this when horse slaughter was legal. That is because 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 ("GAO") in 2004, GAO-04-247; 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/FSIS to make equine slaughter humane and it is a myth to pretend otherwise. Also, the GAO in 3 subsequent reports in 2008, GAO-08-686T; and 2010, GAO-10-203 and GAO-10-487T, has continued to find disparities and inconsistencies in FSIS enforcement of HMSA, an abysmal record of tolerating cruelty at slaughter facilities.

Having to provide sufficient FSIS inspectors even to try to enforce HMSA means even more cost to the taxpayer. For a job that cannot be done when it comes to equines.

Commercial Transportation of Equines to Slaughter Act Unenforceable

GAO has also confirmed that USDA/APHIS has not - and cannot - enforce transport regulations for equines sent to slaughter. 9 CFR Sections 88.1-88.6. Changing a few words here and there in the regulations will not make transport of equines to slaughter humane. 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 solely by the kill buyers and haulers, the very people USDA/APHIS is supposed to be regulating.

A 2010 Office of Inspector General report confirmed APHIS lacks the resources and controls to enforce regulations for humane transport of equines to slaughter. Not only is the information relied on for enforcement supplied by the kill buyers and haulers, APHIS continues to approve of new shipments to slaughter by kill buyers or haulers that have outstanding unpaid fines for violations of humane regulations. The current regulations do not give APHIS the authority to refuse approval.

OIG also found there is no adequate system for tracking the information, such as it is, that is supplied by the kill buyers and haulers about the horses. It is very difficult to track what happens to the horses, meaning enforcement is virtually non-existent. Also, APHIS often does not receive any information from kill buyers or haulers. OIG noted in 2011 that for the past year or more, APHIS had not received the required paperwork, owner/shipper certificates, from kill buyers or haulers for any horses sent from Texas to Mexico.

On top of that, APHIS only has two agents to try to enforce these regulations. Your agency is hamstrung by its own regulations and cannot assure humane transport of equines to slaughter. There is every reason to think your agency could not even begin to assure humane transport of horses within the U.S. to newly opened slaughter facilities.

Food Safety

The Food and Drug Administration ("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. There is no way to know when they are sold for slaughter what these animals have ingested over their lives.

The danger of American horsemeat to consumers was confirmed in a study, "Association of Phenylbutazone (Bute) Usage with Horses Bought for Slaughter" that was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology and authored by Dr. Ann Marini, Department of Neurology, Uniformed University of the Health Sciences; Nicolas Dodman, DVM, Tufts University, and Dr. Nicolas Blondeau, The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology.

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 also 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.

The European Union has recognized this and has initiated steps to try to stop the import into the EU of meat from American horses that may be contaminated. Kill buyers have been found to falsify veterinary and drug reports to avoid the restrictions. There is no enforcement at the borders, meaning the US continues to dump contaminated and deadly horsemeat on Europe and other countries. A petition has been filed with the USDA to stop the slaughter of many U.S. horses for this reason.

Conclusion

Mr. Vilsack, in view of all of this, why would the Obama administration allow, let alone facilitate as a priority, the opening of horse slaughter facilities in the U.S.? I would urge the administration to reconsider this and instead work with horse owners, animal welfare organizations, the 80% of Americans who want horse slaughter banned, and end this grisly practice once and for all. Equines are in danger and equine welfare is threatened as long as slaughter remains available.
Enhanced by Zemanta

7/11/12

Testimony – Senate Committee - by Jerry Finch, Habitat for Horses


re-blogged from Habitat for Horses

Testimony – Senate Committee

Yesterday, myself and many others had a chance to testify before the Texas Senate Committee regarding the possibility of bringing back horse slaughter to Texas. The testimony stared at 1pm and lasted until around 6:30. If you want to watch the whole video, click here

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive/

Item 4, the horse slaughter part, starts at about 1:43 – just use the slider to move it to that time. The State uses Real Video to record these sessions.

I’ll have a lot of comments to make about this session, but I wanted to get this out to you as quickly as possible.
————————————————
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Senator Craig Estes, Chairman
Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Testimony of Jerry Finch, Habitat for Horses:

Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Finch. I am President and Founder of Habitat for Horses, Inc, a Non-profit Equine Protection Organization started in 1998 here in Texas.

I have been Involved in horses since 1958

I am a Level Three Equine Cruelty Investigator – receiving my training through the University of Missouri School of Law Enforcement.

Since 1998, over 5,000 horses passed through the organization, averaging 350 incoming equine per year.

The majority of our horses come from various law enforcement agencies throughout Texas, from cases involving abuse, neglect and abandonment. Rehabilitated horses are returned to service by adoption, averaging around 340 horses per year.

Our primary goal is to provide education to horse owners on the best methods of care for their animals. By doing so, we have touched the lives of thousands of horses.

Habitat for Horses is accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, an international organization that has established clear, specific standards for the humane care of equine and other species in captive facilities and for sanctuary governance and operational issues.

All of this is done on 100 acres in the Galveston area. We are in the process of purchasing an additional 600 acres to expand our operations.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.

First, please note that I am not an ANIMAL RIGHTS RADICAL. I fully support the meat industry and work closely with any number of ranchers on equine welfare issues. While my organization is committed to the humane treatment of equine, the subject before this committee is about money, the dollars made from selling horses for slaughter -  nothing more, nothing less.

Those who want horse slaughter to continue, either as an outlet for the over production of horses or to rid themselves of excess horses, are in a complete panic. The reason? If nothing changes, horse slaughter for human consumption comes to an end on July 31, 2013.

On that date, the regulations of the European Union will prevent the slaughter of American horses in both Mexico and Canada because of the complete lack of traceability of the medication given to American horses.

The report from the Government Accountability Office, GAO 11-228, states “…additional certification may affect Canadian and Mexican exports of horsemeat to Europe and, in turn, may affect the future export of horses intended for slaughter from the United States to these countries.  For example, Canadian requirements went into effect on July, 2010, banning specific medications, such as phenylbutazone—the most common anti-inflammatory medication given to horses—and requiring a 180-day withdrawal period for other medications. Also, since November, 2009, Mexico has required an affidavit by transporters that horses have been free from certain medications for 180 days prior to shipment. Furthermore, effective July 31, 2013, the European Union will require lifetime medication records for all horses slaughtered in non-European Union countries before accepting imports of horsemeat from those countries.”

Translated, that means that without a complete passport system for horses in which ALL medication given to horses from birth to slaughter are entered into a massive database, the animals cannot be imported into the EU for human consumption. All EU horses sold for slaughter for human consumption now must have a passport. Without that passport, the horse will not be slaughtered.
The US has no such system in place, nor will we by July, 2013. Nor will the unsubstantiated 100,000 unwanted horses be accepted, because their history is unknown.

Currently, killer-buyers at the border are signing their own affidavits stating that the horses they present are drug free for a minimum of 180 days. Presently, 48% of those are accepted without any such statements, a violation of current EU regulations.

The establishment of a fully functional passport system in the US means that our government must spend massive amounts of taxpayer money on a National Identification System for equine, duplicating what now exist in the EU countries. I probably don’t need to remind this committee of the uproar over the Federal Government’s attempts at a National Animal Identification System. It failed when they attempted it before and it will fail again.

In that same GAO report is this recommendation:  “Congress may wish to consider instituting an explicit ban on the domestic slaughter of horses and export of U.S. horses intended for slaughter in foreign countries.”

Asking a state full of horse owners to spend hundreds of dollars per animal, to register each animal and each premises into a National Database and to fine us for any failure to comply, in addition to asking taxpayers to fund another massive government system just so three foreign companies, namely Chevidico, Bovery and Richilieu can make a profit by selling horsemeat to consumers in Europe is absolute folly.

But that is the sole purpose of horse slaughter. There is no honorable attempt to help our country rid itself of unwanted horses. The numbers of horses sold for slaughter is determined by a demand for horsemeat in other countries, not the numbers of abandoned, neglected or abused horses. There is absolutely no relation between the two.

In fact, a USDA study conducted by Dr. Temple Grandin found that 92.3% of horses sent to slaughter are healthy. Slaughterhouses do not want and will not take thin, sickly horses. At the six Mexican Border Inspection Offices involved in imports of live horses from the US, 5,336 live horses in 631 consignments were rejected out of 62,560 animals presented for import between January and October 2010.

Over 5,000 horses were rejected in a brief eight month period. What happened to these horses? Are these the “abandoned” horses that are so often thrown out as an example of the need for slaughter?

If this committee’s goal is to Review the impact of state laws relating to the closure of horse slaughter facilities across the United States and Analyze the impact on the equine industry and agricultural sector of the Texas economy, then I ask that you consider these facts:

In a recent survey, 80% of the American people are opposed to the slaughter of horses for human consumption.

In a 2005 study for the American Horse Council, Deloitte Consulting found:

The horse industry in the United States contributes $39 billion in direct economic impact to the US economy and supports 1.4 million jobs on a full-time basis. When indirect and induced spending are included, the industry’s economic impact reaches $102 billion. The study also estimates the horse population in this country has reached 9.2 million. This was 7 years ago.

The total economic value of a dead horse is zero.

The costs to the American taxpayer to establish a fully functional National Horse Identification System  will run into the millions and add another government department filled with inspectors, managers, programmers and database clerks to an already overburden budget. The return on the investment will be a few low paying jobs and a very negative environmental impact – except for the bottom line of those three foreign companies.

Those who are seeking to reverse the Texas law of 1949 forbidding the sale and transport of horsemeat are here because it means money in their pockets at the financial costs and against the wishes of those you represent.

I ask you to submit your report as finding that the re-establishment of horse slaughterhouses in Texas should not happen.

I am open to any questions either now or at any point in the future.

Thank you.

 Related Articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

4/9/12

Why The Issue With Bute?

EATING HORSES

Int'l Fund for Horses

EU Drug Regulations, Phenylbutazone and the Disquieting Truth about Toxic Horse Meat

“BUTE” is by no means the only drug under scrutiny in the sport horse and racing industry however its metabolic activity and "decay life" in animal tissue is in direct contrast to many other legally permissible medications which are transient in nature and are biologically eliminated from the system over established intervals.

Of particular note however is the fact that “bute” is the most widespread anti-inflammatory in the global horse racing industry today. It is estimated that 98% of NA professional sport and pleasure horses have received phenylbutazone at some point in their lives and is widely used in other horse industry jurisdictions around the globe.

The kinetics and drug activity of phenylbutazone and its metabolites (e.g. oxyphenbutazone) are characteristic of a bi-exponential decay rate (the sum of two single exponential decays) meaning, in theory, that regardless of the elapsed time there will always be residuals present in blood plasma (i.e. the concept of infinite division). [1]

An exponential decay rate can be expressed in terms of "half-life" where one half-life represents the amount of time it takes for the substance undergoing "decay" to decrease by one half of the original concentration. Half-lives remain constant over the decay period and as the concentration approaches zero, the time to eliminate any residuals remaining in the system approaches infinity. In other words, there will always be some residuals present regardless of the passage of time.

Table 1 and Figure 1 together illustrate a simple model of exponential decay.
Of particular note is that regardless of the number of half-lives denoted by "n", the fraction or percentage of the original concentration of the substance under analysis will always be greater than zero.
Table 1: Exponential Decay Concept


Number of Half-Lives Elapsed


Fraction of Original Concentration Remaining


Percentage of Original Concentration Remaining


0


1


100


1


1/2


50


2


1/4


25


3


1/8


12.5


4


1/16


6.25


5


1/32


3.125


...


...


...


n


1/(2n)


100/(2n)
Where n = number of half-lives
Figure 1: Exponential Decay Curve Showing Persistence of Residues
Figure 1: Exponential Decay Curve Showing Persistence of Residues
Decades ago phenylbutazone, a compound originally used in Europe as a solubilizing agent for various analgesics given by intramuscular injection, was introduced to the drug compendium in the US for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and gout, nonetheless with fateful brevity.
Admitted in 1949, and shortly thereafter banned by the FDA for human use, by the year 2003 the ban extended to animals intended for human consumption given that investigation by FDA and State regulatory counterparts determined that phenylbutazone residues were discovered in culled dairy cattle. [2] [3]

At the time this did not include horses or dogs as in North America neither are considered food animals.

"Phenylbutazone (PBZ) was marketed in the United States for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1952. Serious and often fatal adverse effects such as aplastic anemia and agranulocytosis appeared in the literature within three years of its use . . . . . The serious adverse effects of PBZ culminated in its unavailability for human use in the United States."
[4]
Apart from aplastic anemia (bone marrow suppression) and agranulocytosis (reduction in infection fighting white blood cells), phenylbutazone and its principal metabolite oxyphenbutazone have also been implicated in thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), leucopenia (decreased white blood cells), pancytopenia (reduced red and white blood cells and platelets), hemolytic anemia (abnormal breakdown of red blood cells) and can cause hypersensitivity reactions in the liver leading to death. [5]  Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as determined by the National Toxicology Program. [6]

Clearly there is apt rationale for banning phenylbutazone for human use as well as animals intended for human consumption both as a function of its toxicity and the causal certainty that residues will always be present to some extent in the blood and hence tissues of animals slaughtered for food.  Additionally, what is most disconcerting is that the lethal adverse effects in humans are not always dose-dependent and demonstrate unique outcomes contingent on a particular individual’s susceptibility. In essence what this implies is that even in small quantities phenylbutazone and its metabolites can have deleterious effects on human health. [7]

To this end, the FDA has banned the use of phenylbutazone in horses destined for slaughter.
Moreover, there are no farming associations that raise horses for food in North America (unless the AQHA can be considered eligible). And despite the fact that horse slaughter in the US has been outlawed since 2007, there is no pretense about what happens to more than 100,000 horses sold annually at auction who are shipped to Canada and Mexico. Once butchered, their meat is exported to European and Asian locales where it fetches top dollar and is considered a delicacy.

The fact is that the majority of these horses will be administered phenylbutazone during some point in their lives to relieve musculoskeletal pain and inflammation.
This in itself is not entirely inappropriate as there are valid reasons for its use in the treatment of lameness providing the recommended dosage is abided by, as there are also potential life-threatening side-effects to the horse (e.g. severe gastric ulceration).

Instead, the glaring inconsistency is the unmistakable fact that these horses enter the food chain; perhaps not in North America but elsewhere through export to foreign countries nonetheless. What’s more, since the residues of phenylbutazone and its metabolites reside primarily in the blood plasma of the tissues there is the complicating factor of the inherent differences between slaughtered cattle and horse carcasses.

"As stated above, almost all of the PBZ remains in the bloodstream. . . . To provide a point of comparison, a 1400 lb cow has 60 ml/kg body weight or almost 10 gallons or 0.71 gallons per 100 lbs of cow. The ratio is 1.25/.71 = 1.76:1. Thus, a horse has 1.76 times as much blood per pound of body weight compared to a cow." [8]

Potentially this means that there is a calculated measure of risk of the presence of higher concentrations of toxic residues in horse meat than in beef. In actual fact there is no "risk" of higher concentrations in horse meat in light of the fact that the drug has been banned in other animals, such as cattle for example, intended for human consumption since 2003:  the residues are undeniably higher in horse meat. Still the quandary exists.

"The FDA, like the EU and UK, specifically bans the use of PBZ in any horse destined for slaughter for human consumption. Yet, this ban is being circumvented because there is no pre-slaughter mechanism to determine and remove horses that receive PBZ during their lifetime. This is because horses are not regarded as or treated as food-producing animals in the United States and there are no USDA regulations to prevent them from being given banned substances like PBZ." [9]

Horses may not be perceived as food-producing animals in the US, but they are certainly treated as if they are in the same appalling manner.
Continue reading >>


Enhanced by Zemanta

12/16/11

Investigation on Horse Meat Entering Europe From America

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.
Enhanced by Zemanta

10/10/11

I Wouldn't Ask You To Sign a Laundry Slip

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.

Red-meat-2
Enhanced by Zemanta

8/23/11

The Quiet War Against Wyoming's Wild Horses

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?



wild horse reuters- Jim Urquhart - Reuters-body.jpg
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
Enhanced by Zemanta
"From my earliest memories, I have loved horses with a longing beyond words." ~ Robert Vavra