During
the 2007-2008 Congressional session, an anti-horse slaughter bill, the
Conyers-Burton Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act was passed by the House
Judiciary Committee.
A hearing was held, and the following are excerpts of information presented at that hearing.  Â
The hearing was held before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) chaired the hearings. Rep.
Louis Gohmert (R-TX) was the ranking minority member. Rep. John Conyers
(D-MI), sponsor of the legislation and Chairman of the Committee on
Judiciary, was also present.
Â
Liz Ross, federal policy advisor to the
Animal Welfare Institute in Washington, D.C., told the subcommittee she "
first
became aware that horses were being slaughtered in this country for
human consumption overseas when I was contacted in 2000 by a woman who
frequented the New Holland Livestock Sale in Pennsylvania..... It is a
known fact that many of the horses sold at New Holland end up being slaughtered for high-end diners in Europe and Asia.
I made my first journey to New Holland that April, arriving late on a
Sunday night to see the horses being brought in for sale the next
morning. While many of the horses there were beautiful animals who would certainly end up in good homes others had clearly been neglected or abused.
"Dozens of horses were already in the kill-pens destined for slaughter. Of those horses that went through the auction ring I was able to purchase three, all of whom undoubtedly would have otherwise gone to slaughter. One was in such bad shape that she should have never been brought through the ring and we had her euthanized on the spot. The other two were placed at an equine rescue facility in New Jersey where they still live today.
"Hundreds of other horses that day were not so lucky. Although most of the animals were healthy and marketable, they were loaded into cramped trailers with unfamiliar horses and endured lengthy trips across hundreds of miles to the then-functional slaughterhouses in Illinois and Texas where they were brutally slaughtered.
"The pure animal suffering and terror I witnessed that day at New
Holland was ... fundamentally disturbing as was everything I
subsequently learned about the horse slaughter industry".
Ross continued,
"[D]espite the closure of the U.S. horse slaughter
houses] our horses are still being horrifically butchered for their
meat to feed luxury diners abroad and to line a few foreign pockets.
They simply are being transported further to Canada and Mexico where, if
imaginable, conditions are even worse than they were here. Furthermore,
there is the distinct possibility that with the current patchwork of
state laws specific to horse slaughter, processing plants could begin to
operate in states with lesser laws than those of Texas, Illinois and
California. The United States Congress can and must pass H.R. 6598 into
law so that we can ensure that our horses are no longer subjected to
this ugly and wholly un-American trade."
Horse slaughter is not humane euthanasia
Ross as well as other witnesses, Dr. Nicholas Dodman, Dr. John Boyd
and Wayne Pacelle, all testified there is nothing humane about
slaughter.
Ross said, "
There can be no doubt that horse slaughter is a brutal
process from beginning to end. Killer buyers- the men who frequent the
livestock auctions where they purchase horses from unknowing sellers for
resale to the foreign-owned slaughterhouses - have no regard for the
horses' welfare. Because the horses' final destination is slaughter,
little concern is paid to their treatment when they are collected,
during transport or in the slaughterhouse. A former equine investigator
for the Pennsylvania state police summed this industry up perfectly when
she said ‘...horses were deprived of food and water because they were
going to slaughter anyway. My conclusion is that the slaughter option
actually encourages neglect.'"
Ross also told the subcommittee, "
There has been a concerted
campaign of misinformation by those who wish to perpetuate the horse
slaughter trade, and a key tenet of that campaign has been the ludicrous
position that horse slaughter is a form of humane euthanasia. While the
mechanism used in some slaughterhouses - the captive-bolt gun - can in
theory be used by a trained veterinarian to euthanize a horse, the
similarity between truly humane euthanasia and slaughter ends there. I
know of no veterinarian nor have I heard of one who would advocate the
captive bolt gun as a means of euthanasia aside perhaps from those
lobbying against this bill. Chemical euthanasia is the primary means
while some individuals and veterinarians may use a single gunshot in
certain circumstances.
"In slaughter, horses suffer long before they reach the
slaughterhouse. Crammed onto doubledeck trailers designed for cattle and
sheep, horses travel in a bent manner for more than twenty-four hours
without food, water or rest. In fact, so paltry are current regulations
and so brutal is the trade that heavily pregnant mares, blind horses and
those with broken limbs are regularly sent to slaughter.
"At the slaughterhouse the horses are unloaded and handled in a savage manner. Prodded into the kill box they are often hit in the head multiple times by slaughterhouse workers. Simply put, it is disingenuous and factually incorrect to suggest that horse slaughter is a form of humane euthanasia. The use of a captive-bolt gun in any circumstance is strongly criticized by the Veterinarians for Equine Welfare in their recent white paper on horse slaughter, which can be found on their website.
"It is also noteworthy that in Mexico the captive-bolt gun is often passed over in preference to the "puntilla" knife which is used to stab the horse in the spinal cord to the point of paralysis before the animal is strung up and quartered, often while still alive. In fact, one of the Mexican plants that was the subject of an undercover investigation exposing this horrific practice employs lobbyists who work the halls of Congress to defeat this bill. Mr. Chairman, this is pure animal cruelty, through and through, and it must
end."
Dr. Nicholas Dodman, Professor, Section Head and
Program Director of the Animal Behavior Department of Clinical Sciences
at Tufts' Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine in North Grafton,
Massachusetts, was very blunt, "
Horse slaughter has never been
considered by veterinary professionals to be a form of euthanasia.
Congress and the general public must hear from veterinarians that horse
slaughter is not and should not be equated with humane
euthanasia. Rather, the slaughtering of horses is a brutal and predatory
business... One need only observe horse slaughter to see that it is a
far cry from genuine humane euthanasia.
"From the transport of horses on inappropriate conveyances for
long periods of time without food, water or rest - to the very ugly
slaughter process in which horses react with pain and fear, no evidence
exists to support the claim that horse slaughter is a form of humane
euthanasia. Rather, it is a brutal process that results in very tangible
and easily observable equine suffering.
"...It is an unethical and dangerous practice to equate horse slaughter with humane euthanasia."
Dr. Dodman noted that the "
AVMA
does not advocate slaughter as a form of euthanasia to the general
public. The association's brochure on equine euthanasia, How do I know
it is time?: Equine Euthanasia, speaks only of veterinarian-administered
euthanasia, not slaughter.
The brochure states: Â "Perhaps the kindest thing you can do for a
horse that is extremely ill, severely injured, lame, or dangerous is to
have your veterinarian induce its death quickly and humanely through
euthanasia. Your decision to have your horse euthanized is a serious
one, and is seldom easy to make." ...
"Loading and unloading onto the rigs is stressful and injurious as
horses must immediately go either up or down a relatively steep ramp to
access one of the two floors. Because the trailers are divided into two
levels and thus have low ceilings, many horses are unable to stand
fully upright and are forced to travel in a bent position. Not only are
double-deck trailers inhumane, they are dangerous due to their high
center of gravity. Numerous heart-wrenching and lethal accidents have
occurred in recent years in which double-deck trailers were carrying
horses to a middle-point along the route to slaughter. The results were
grisly and absolutely avoidable. ...
"The use of the captive-bolt gun, which is commonly used in the
slaughter of livestock (including horses), is one of the most egregious
aspects of horse slaughter. To clarify, the captive-bolt gun is a
mechanical method by which animals are supposed to be rendered
immediately unconscious (not killed) through a quick blow to the brain
by a metal bolt prior to actual slaughter. However, in order for the
method to work as intended, the captive bolt must be administered
properly. According to the AVMA's guidelines, the head of the animal
to which the captive bolt is being applied must be restrained or still
and a highly skilled individual must administer the fatal blow.
"In the slaughterhouse none of these scenarios is in place: the
horse is often panicked, its head is unrestrained, and the person
administering the captive bolt is a low-paid worker who is expected to
move horses through the kill line at high speed. Herein lays the problem
with the use of the captive bolt in horse slaughter. In its 2007 AVMA
Guidelines on Euthanasia, the AVMA rates the use of the captive bolt to
euthanize horses as "acceptable". However, it is the opinion of VEW
professionals that this categorization was based on studies conducted on
species other than equine. No studies are cited in the 2007 AVMA
Guidelines on Euthanasia that any scientific research has ever been
conducted to determine the humaneness or efficacy of the captive bolt
gun for use specifically on horses. Further review finds that the 2007
AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia denoted reference #112-- Australian
Veterinary Association (AVA), Guidelines for Humane Slaughter and
Euthanasia Australian Veterinary Journal 1987:64:4-7 is contradictory to
the opinion of the AVA reference itself. The Australian Veterinary
Association clearly states the following: Horses: Abattoirs--- "An
adequate caliber firearm or a humane killer may be used to render the
horse unconscious for bleeding. The captive bolt pistol is not
satisfactory for horses since firm pressure on the forehead is essential
for its effective use and this tends to be resisted by the horse. This
problem applies to a lesser extent with the humane killer". Therefore,
it is the united conclusion of VEW professionals that the captive bolt
should be used only in emergency (non-slaughter) situations where no
other option exists to humanely end a horse's suffering or when advanced
circulatory dysfunction might diminish the efficiency of chemical
euthanasia. Even then it must be administered properly by a highly
skilled operator. When used in the slaughter context it is not equitable
with humane euthanasia.
"Recent investigations by the Humane Society of the United States
and the San Antonio News-Express reveal that the use of the "puntilla
knife" to sever the spinal cord of horses and render them unable
to move prior to slaughter is common practice in Mexican slaughter
plants. Footage shows horses being repeatedly stabbed in the neck with
these knives prior to slaughter. Such a barbaric practice does not
render the horse unconscious, it simply paralyzes the animal. The horse
is still fully conscious at the start of the slaughter process during
which the animal is hung by a hind leg, its throat slit and its body
butchered.
"I
personally had the opportunity in June of this year to review hidden
camera video of many horses being slaughtered at the Natural Valley Farm
horse slaughter plant in Saskatchewan, Canada - a plant known to
slaughter imported American horses. I found the slaughter process
inappropriate, inhumane, unsupervised, and in total disregard of the
animals' welfare. Particular problem areas included:
Horses
being driven into the kill box were, for the most part, terrified. I
believe this was because of the way they were being treated (horses are
accustomed to being led, not driven); the use of prod sticks; the
cacophonous clamor of the place (clanging, compressed air sounds,
yelling); the attitude of the stunners; and the general atmosphere of
inevitability/doom.
The floor
of the kill box was slippery so that when the terrified horses tried to
run or jump their way out of their dreadful dilemma they often slipped
and fell on the bloody metal floor or their feet would spin around as if
they were trying to run on an ice rink.
The sides
of the kill box were not high enough to prevent them from seeing the
disturbing sights of other horses being hung, bled out and butchered.
The kill box was too wide and too long, allowing horses to back away from the stunner‟s access site.
Because
of the unsuitability of the slaughter setup, captive bolt operators were
often trying to hit a moving target and in some cases were unable to
locate the kill spot on the horses‟ forehead because the horse had
turned around, slumped down, or moved backward in the kill box. When the
stunner is trying to hit a brain the size of an orange in a skull the
size of a suitcase any movement is likely to lead to incomplete
stunning. I observed several horses being improperly "stunned."
Mouthing, tonguing, and paddling of the feet were not uncommonly seen as
horses were dragged away to be hung up and bled out. Some of these
horses were likely still conscious as they were being bled. This
experience is not significantly different than often occurred at horse
slaughter plants operating in the U.S.
Captive
bolt operators and their assistants seemed impatient and were unkind to
the horses, hitting them repeating, cussing at them, and generally
showing no signs of empathy.
Disturbingly,
the foot cutter (amputation device) was next in line after the horses
throats were slit (on one side only). It is possible that some may have
had their feet cut off while semiconscious.
Horses
that should not have been transported or slaughtered were present at the
plant. Horses with medical problems should not be shipped for slaughter
and some would never have passed meat inspection."
Dr. John Boyd, President and founder of the National Black Farmers Association with more than 94,000 members in 46 states, said "
Another
point I've heard time and time again from those opposed to a ban on
horse slaughter is that horse slaughter is a form of humane euthanasia.
This notion is as preposterous as it is false. There is a huge
difference between having a veterinarian put my horse down on my farm
when the time comes, and putting my horse onto a double-deck truck
packed with dozens of other horses to travel for more than a day and
night without any food or water or rest, only to be brutally handled and
slaughtered in the most fearful and terrifying environment. A five year
old could see the difference between these two scenarios and it is
stunning to me that anyone would attempt to equate the two practices.
Bottom line, horse slaughter isn't humane, it's downright cruel."
Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of HSUS, testified, "
The
cruelty of horse slaughter is not limited to the killing - the entire
process involves terrible suffering. Horses bound for slaughter plants
are shipped, frequently over long distances, in inhumane conditions.
They are typically given no food, water or rest. Terrified horses and
ponies are commonly crammed together and transported to slaughter in
trucks designed for cattle and pigs. The trailer ceilings are so low
that horses are not even able to hold their heads in a balanced
position. Inappropriate floor surfaces cause slips and falls, and
sometimes even trampling. Some horses arrive at the slaughter house seriously injured or dead.
"Horses by their very nature, respond to hostile and frightening environments by trying to flee. For this reason, they cannot reliably be slaughtered in a humane fashion. While federal law is supposed to require that horses are rendered unconscious prior to slaughter, usually with a captive bolt pistol (which shoots a metal rod into the horse's brain), our undercover footage of the former horse slaughterhouse BelTex showed that horses were not stunned and were kicking and conscious when they are shackled and hoisted by a rear leg to have their throats cut. Horses respond to fear by throwing their head, making such live dismemberment an inevitability. Horse slaughter is inherently inhumane, due to the skittish nature of horses.
"A set of documents we obtained through the Freedom of Information
Act demonstrates that the U.S. horse slaughterhouses had problems with
employees whipping horses across the face with fiberglass rods, horses
flipping over backward because of such whipping and injuring their
heads, and the use of long bullwhips in the holding pen. Other problems
included the failure to provide water to horses in holding pens because
of a fear that the watering system would freeze. Government observers
characterized these incidents as "egregious humane handling" problems. (USDA, 2005, 2006, 2007). Death at the slaughterhouse can never be characterized as ‘euthanasia' and is not a humane end for horses.
"In Mexico our investigators have uncovered extreme cruelty in the manner in which horses are slaughtered. At one plant in Juarez, we documented a slaughterhouse worker stunning horses by repeatedly stabbing them in the neck with a boning knife to sever the spinal cord, thus paralyzing the animals and rendering them unable to struggle, but potentially leaving them conscious during the process of bleeding out and dismemberment. In Canada, horses are either stunned by the same inexact methods that were used in the U.S., or are shot in the head with a firearm.
"Death at the slaughterhouse, whether in the U.S. or across our borders, is anything but a humane end for horses."
Pacelle showed the subcommittee that, for example, rescues like
CANTER in Michigan actually match kill buyers' prices to save race
horses from slaughter. Rescues do this because they know there is
nothing humane about slaughter.
Humane euthanasia is available and affordable
Several witnesses testified the average cost of humane euthanasia is
approximately $225, less than the monthly overall cost of keeping a
horse.
Proper disposal of horse carcasses no longer slaughtered is readily available
Ross testified, "
As for the question of what to do with horse
carcasses if slaughter is removed as an option, consider that
approximately 920,000 horses die annually in this country (10 percent of
an estimated population of 9.2 million) and the vast majority are not
slaughtered, but euthanized and rendered or buried without any negative
environmental impact. Well over 100,000 American horses were slaughtered
in 2007. If slaughter were no longer an option and these horses were
rendered or buried instead, this would represent a small increase in the
number of horses being disposed of in this manner - an increase that
the current infrastructure can certainly sustain. However, most
slaughter-bound horses are marketable, healthy horses and needn't be
lethally disposed of.
Dr. Dodman agreed,
"[E]ven if all horses currently going to
slaughter would need to be mortally disposed of, the impact would be
insignificant. A generally accepted rate of mortality among livestock in
a given year is 5 - 10%. Therefore, based on the 9.2 million horses
currently in the US, 460,000 - 920,000 die naturally or are humanely
euthanized each year without notable impact. Another 100,000 (the
approximate number of American horses slaughtered in 2007) or roughly 1%
will make no significant impact."
Pacelle summarized, "
Humane euthanasia and carcass disposal are
highly affordable and widely available. The average cost of having a
horse humanely euthanized and safely disposing of the animal's carcass
is approximately $225, while the monthly cost of keeping a live horse is
$200 on average. In some Western states, renderers we contacted said
they would come to any part of the state to pick up a horse carcass for $20.00 - and they indicated that the client can simply leave the money in a jar by the body."
Horse slaughter does not exist to provide a humane method for disposing of old and unwanted horses.
Ross emphasized, "
Despite claims to the contrary, horse slaughter
doesn't exist to provide a humane method for disposing of old and
unwanted horses. It exists because there is money to be made from the
trade, in this case by several foreign owned companies. The truth is
that very few horses are purposely sold to slaughter by their owners.
Instead, most horse owners do the right thing and have their horses
humanely euthanized by a licensed veterinarian when the time comes. The
cost - approximately $225 - is simply a part of responsible horse
ownership and is the right thing to do."
Dr. Dodman told the subcommittee, "
The vast majority of horses
that go to slaughter are not lame, sick, injured or unwanted. Instead,
the horse slaughter industry exists solely because a profit stands to be
made in fulfilling gourmet demand in foreign countries for horseflesh.
Where there is a market demand it will be supplied by market forces, in
this case by unscrupulous companies and individuals who stand to profit
off the slaughter of American horses. For example, when the three
remaining horse slaughter plants were operating in the US, Cavel
International imported horses from Canada for slaughter in order to fill
their demand."
Pacelle agreed, "
Show horses, racehorses, foals born as a
"byproduct" of the Premarin© industry (a female hormone replacement
drug), wild horses, carriage horses, and family horses are victims of
the horse slaughter industry."
Pacelle continued, noting that, in fact,
"[A] federal ban on horse
slaughter will decrease the rate of horse theft in the United States.
Many horses are unknowingly sold to slaughter, while many are stolen and
sold for a profit. When California banned horse slaughter, there was a
31% drop in horse theft (Stull, 2007) Wild horses often are sold to
slaughter. Logs from the last three plants in the U.S. showed that at
least 386 wild horses (with BLM brands) were slaughtered in 2006.
Irresponsible owners who wish to squeeze a final dollar from horses that
have served them for years may seek an easy means of disposing of their animals via the slaughter industry. However, most are purchased at auction, where their former owners have no idea that their horses will be butchered. Killer buyers (middlemen hired by slaughter houses to secure horses) and slaughterhouse operators try to suggest that all the horses
they slaughter are old and past recovery. ...USDA documents that 92.3%
of horses arriving at slaughter plants in the U.S. are in ˜good' condition (USDA, 2002)."
Dr. Boyd said, "
The truth is that most horses going to slaughter
are being purposely bought by middlemen, known as killer-buyers, working
for the slaughterhouses rather than being sold to slaughter by their
owners. In short, the slaughter market exists not to provide an outlet
for unwanted horses but so that the foreign-owned slaughterhouses can
profit from the trade."
Dr. Boyd disputed that slaughter must be an option for economically disadvantaged owners. He explained, "
The
truth is that it costs a couple of hundred of dollars to have a
veterinarian put a horse down, and that a person can make a couple of
hundred of dollars by selling a horse to slaughter, but money isn't
everything. The fact is that my organization is largely made up of
lower-income, economically disadvantaged farmers and we are saying that
we neither want nor need horse slaughter as an option in this country.
We are willing to provide quality care for our horses and when the time
comes to end our horses' lives we opt to do so by truly humane means -
not by shipping them to slaughter for a quick buck."
Ending horse slaughter has not and will not mean a flood of "unwanted" horses
In an effort to debunk this myth, Ross said, "
There has also been a
huge drop in the number of horses gong to slaughter in the past few
decades, from a high of more than 350,000 horses in 1990 to just over
120,000 last year, yet there has been no correlating epidemic of ˜unwanted' horses in our streets and fields."
Pacelle pointed out, "
In California, where horse slaughter was
banned in 1998, there was no corresponding rise in cruelty and neglect
cases, and as mentioned previously, horse theft has dropped in the state
by 31% since enactment of the ban.
"There was no documented rise in horse abuse, starvation, or neglect cases in Illinois following closure of the state's only horse slaughter plant in 2002. In fact, when the Illinois plant was non-operational for two years from March 2002 - June 2004, the Illinois Dept. of Agriculture documented a drop in horse cruelty in the state (Retrieved on July 25, 2008 from http:www.vetsforequinewelfare.org/white_paper.php.). When it reopened, the horse abuse cases went back up.
"A recent study released by the Animal Law Coalition issued June 17, 2008 documents no rise in horse neglect or abuse cases, but there has been a slight decrease nationwide.
"Allowing one's horse to starve is not an option - state anti-cruelty laws prohibit such neglect. Rather, people will have their horses humanely euthanized as allowed by law and as currently done the vast majority of the horse-owning population. The idea that horse slaughter is necessary to deal with an "unwanted horse" population is clearly a myth. According to the USDA, at least 5,000 horses were imported into one of the three foreign-owned slaughter plants operating in the U.S. for slaughter between August 2004 and the closure of the last plant in 2007 (retrieved on July 10, 2008 from http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/wa-ls637txtverify date retrieved)). If horse slaughter were actually a solution to the problem of an overabundance of horses in the United States, then there would be no reason to import more horses for slaughter."
Ross added, "
The Animal Welfare Institute has looked into
claims of abandoned horses and they are largely unfounded. There is,
however, a very real economic crunch that everyone is feeling including
horse owners. Rising fuel prices combined with rising hay prices as a
result of severe drought are negatively impacting horse owners, not the
closure of the slaughter plants in Illinois and Texas. ...If horses are
being abandoned and abused it clearly has nothing to do with the horse
slaughter industry. To claim otherwise is pure fantasy and exists solely
as a political shell game and not a valid concern."
Dr. Dodman agreed the closure of the U.S. horse slaughter houses has
not led to an increase in abandoned or neglected horses. Dr. Dodman
explained, "
This is not surprising. The horse slaughter business is
not providing a service for the disposal of ˜unwanted' horses, but
rather is preying on largely healthy, marketable horses that might
otherwise be used for productive purposes. Several ‘news' reports
surfaced in late 2007 claiming to show an increase in abandonment, but
all have proven false. In fact, an article in the Oregonian quotes a
local law enforcement officer regarding nine new cases of abandonment.
When contacted the officer has denied any knowledge of the claims. A
similar story in Kentucky was exposed as a hoax.
"In fact, when the number of horses going to slaughter declined by
nearly 90 percent between the early 1990s and the early 2000s there was
no correlating increase in abandoned or neglected horses. To the
contrary, the temporary closure of the Cavel plant in Illinois between
2002 and 2004 resulted in a decline in equine abuse and neglect cases."
Environmental Considerations
Pacelle reported to the subcommittee, "
Hundreds of thousands of
horses are safely disposed of annually by means other than slaughter,
and the infrastructure can absorb an increase in numbers. Conversely,
the operation of horse slaughterhouses has a very real negative
environmental impact, with all three of the last plants which operated
in the U.S. having been cited for multiple violations of current
environmental law related to the disposal of blood and other waste
materials. Former Mayor Paula Bacon of Kaufman, TX - the home of one of
the three former plants- desperately stated ‘...Dallas-Crown is
operating in violation of a multitude of local laws pertaining to waste management, air quality and other environmental concerns....Residents are also fed up with the situation. Long-established neighbors living adjacent to the plant cannot open their windows or run air conditioners without enduring the most horrific stench.'"
Ross said there was literally blood running in the streets of Kaufman because of the horse slaughter house.
Pacelle continued,
"[O]n August 15, 2005, the Kaufman City Council
(home to Dallas Crown, Inc.) - fed up with the ongoing problems since
the plant's opening in 1986 - voted unanimously to implement termination
proceedings against the plant. Former Kaufman Mayor Paula Bacon wrote a
letter to Congress and traveled to Capitol Hill with several Kaufman
residents to request federal legislation to stop horse slaughter in
their community. Both of the other horse slaughterhouses, also
foreign-owned, had repeatedly been fined for violating local laws and
creating sewage overflows. There is no import or export tariff on
horse meat and most, if not all, of the profits were sent back to the
parent companies in Europe.
"It was difficult for [all of these communities with horse
slaughter houses] to attract any new businesses because of the
substantial stigma created by these plants. The minimal financial
contributions of these facilities were vastly overshadowed by the
enormous economic and development suppressing burden they represented to
their local communities and the negative image they created. As Mayor
Bacon said in her letter, "The more I learn about horse slaughter, the more certain I am: There is no justification for horse slaughter in this country. The three plants are foreign-owned, employing fewer than 150 people. We do not raise horses to eat, we do not eat horse meat, our American economy does not profit from this industry. My city is little other than a door mat for a foreign-owned business that drains our resources and stigmatizes our economic development. There is no justification for supporting horse slaughter over my community. (Bacon, 2005a)
As a community leader where we are directly impacted by the horse slaughter industry, I can assure you the economic development return to our community is negative. The foreign owned companies profit at our expense -- it is time for them to go."(Bacon, 2005b).
Property rights
Charlie W. Stenholm, former Congressman from the 17th District in
Texas, testified against the bill. He made the point horses are property
that owners can do with what they like. Dr. Boyd was quick to respond
that it was not so long ago that African Americans were considered to be
property.
Dr. Boyd said, "
I've heard more times than I can count the
argument that by banning horse slaughter Congress will be infringing
upon the property rights of American citizens, and that the government
has no place in telling people what they can and cannot do with their
horses. If I may be so bold, this is the very same argument that was
used more than one hundred years ago to perpetuate slavery. It seems
that the property rights argument is raised when it is economically
advantageous to ignore the plight and suffering of living beings. ...The
fact is that the government already restricts what Americans can and
cannot do to their animals."
As Michael Vick learned the hard way.
____________________________
Additional Issues Addressed by HSUS
Health Concerns of Horse Meat Consumption
Horsemeat is potentially dangerous when consumed by people because
horses are not raised for this purpose. American horses are regularly
treated with worming medications, drugs and other injections not
intended for human consumption, and banned by the European Union for use
in horses raised in Europe for human consumption (Recent controversy
around the use of steroids in horse racing underscores the potential
risks related to the human consumption of horse meat. Our investigators
saw horses fresh off the race track or show ring moving directly to
slaughter. The recent controversy following Eight Belles' death unveiled
the drugging underbelly in the horse racing industry, with commonplace
use of steroids, dewormers, painkillers, and other chemical compounds
unsuitable for animals intended for human consumption.
Horse Meat in Pet Food
There is no horse meat in pet food. This practice stopped decades ago,
due in part to the enactment of protections for America's wild horses
in 1971. The U.S. public and Congress were outraged to learn that
federal agencies were rounding up and allowing the exploitation and
slaughter of these national treasures for items such as pet food. Some
by-products of the horse slaughter industry are used in various consumer
items, but they are derived from the rendering of dead horses.
Rendering is an entirely different process from the slaughter of live
horses and will not be impeded by H.R. 6598.
The Use of Horse Meat in Zoos
This legislation does not prohibit the use of horse meat in zoos. Zoos
will be able to continue to feed horse meat to their big cats, as the
bill will only stop the domestic slaughter of horses for human
consumption. The Federal Meat Inspection Act doesn't require the same
inspections for meat products intended for animal use. However, there is
a growing trend to feed a beef-based diet to captive big cats. Several
USDA-licensed facilities that keep big cats such as lions and tigers
have switched to such a diet because it is better for the cats' health.
___________________________________
History of Horse Slaughter Issue in Congress and Scope of Proposed Legislation
In 2002, the first bill specifically prohibiting horse slaughter in
the United States was introduced by former Representative Connie Morella
(R-MD). Over the years, this legislation has garnered strong bipartisan
support, as demonstrated by its cosponsor list and floor votes in both
chambers, but it has not yet been signed into law.
Congressional Action - FY2006 Agriculture Appropriations Amendment
- To put a halt to horse slaughter for human consumption, Congressmen John
Sweeney (R-NY), John Spratt (D-SC), Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and Nick
Rahall (DWV), sponsored an amendment to the FY 2006 Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act ("Agriculture Appropriations Act") to de-fund USDA
inspection of horses for slaughter under the FMIA.
- An identical amendment was offered in the Senate by Senators John
Ensign (RNV) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) and cosponsored by Senators Jon
Corzine (D-NJ), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Lindsey
Graham (R-SC), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Trent Lott
(R-MS), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).
- The amendments were supported by a broad coalition of over one
hundred horse breeding, showing, and racing organizations such as the
National Show Horse Registry, the National Thoroughbred Racing
Association, and Churchill Downs-as well as numerous horse welfare and
humane organizations across the country.
- Congressional offices were flooded with calls from constituents
urging their support of the amendment, and newspapers across the country
editorialized in its favor.
- The Amendment passed the House on June 8, 2005 by a landslide vote of 269-158.
- The identical Senate Amendment was also overwhelmingly approved by a vote of 69-28 on September 20, 2005.
- Section 794 of the final FY 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act
prohibited USDA from using congressionally appropriated funds to pay for
federally mandated inspection of horses prior to slaughter.
Specifically, Section 794 states: Effective 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, none of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. § 603) or under the guidelines issued under section 903 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
 On November 10, 2005, President Bush signed this provision into law as part of the FY 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
Slaughterhouse Petition
- Shortly thereafter, the three horse slaughter plants operating in
the U.S. submitted an emergency rule making petition to the USDA
requesting that the agency promulgate an expedited rule to provide
"fee-for-service" inspections for horse slaughter.
- The proposal asked the USDA to circumvent Congress' intent to
prohibit horse slaughter inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection
Act by creating an entirely new regulatory inspection scheme for horses
under the Agricultural Marketing Act.
- Petitioners also requested that this new regulatory system be put in place without prior public notice and comment rule making.
Congressional Requests regarding Implementation of Congress's Mandate
- On December 1, 2005, unaware of the pending petition,
Representatives Whitfield, Sweeney, and Spratt and Senator Byrd wrote to
the USDA to ensure that it would follow Congress' intent to prevent
horse slaughter for human consumption.
- The USDA responded December 21, 2005 informing the Congressmen and
Senator that the Appropriations Act "does not prevent horse slaughter at
all," and that "notwithstanding the prohibition on expenditure of
funds" mandated by Congress in the Act, the USDA believed it could still
provide inspection of horses on a "fee-for-service" basis.
- The USDA then issued a new regulation allowing the slaughterhouses
to implement a "fee for service" horse inspection program. This
regulation permits these European-owned companies to continue butchering
tens of thousands of horses, circumventing the amendment that Congress
passed barring the use of federal funds to inspect horses destined for
slaughter for human food.
- In January, 40 members of the U.S. House and Senate wrote to USDA
Secretary Mike Johanns demanding that the agency stop all horse
slaughter inspections on March 10, 2006, as required by the law that
Congress passed. "The agency must cease inspection of horses for
slaughter. Failure to do so constitutes willful disregard of clear
Congressional intent on the part of the USDA," the letter said. "The
agency has absolutely no authority to circumvent a Congressional mandate
and effectively rewrite an unambiguous law at the request of the
horse-slaughter industry." (Letter from members of Congress to USDA,
January 17, 2005).
Litigation for Proper Enforcement of FY 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Amendment
The HSUS and others filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the
District of Columbia, and sought a temporary restraining order to block
the USDA's new regulation from going into effect, a motion that the
Judge denied.
- A federal district court ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture
on March 29, 2007 to stop inspecting horses about to be slaughtered at
the Cavel International slaughter plant, effectively closing the last
operating horse slaughtering operation in the United States. The order
was stayed pending appeal, allowing Cavel to temporarily reopen.
Passage of Authorizing Legislation (H.R. 503) on House Floor
- On July 25, 2006 the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a
hearing on H.R. 503, with four witnesses in favor and four opposed to
the legislation. T. Boone Pickens testified in favor of H.R. 503,
describing horse slaughter as America's dirty secret."
- On July 27, 2006, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing on
H.R. 503 with no witnesses in favor and two panels of witnesses opposed
to the legislation. The Committee took votes on multiple amendments that
would gut the intent of the legislation, including amendments making
the states of New York and Kentucky pilot programs for the legislation.
- On September 7, 2006, the House of Representatives voted on H.R.
503, passing it by a 263-146. Two poison pill amendments were defeated
prior to passage (King amendment 149-256 and Goodlatte amendment
177-229)
- H.R. 503 was received in the Senate on September 8, 2006. Read the
first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First
Time.
- H.R. 503 was read the second time on September 11, 2006. Placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 603.
- Previous actions were vitiated on September 18, 2006 by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S9686)
- H.R. 503 was returned to the House September 18, 2006 pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1011 by Unanimous Consent.
- Papers were returned to House on September 19, 2006 pursuant to H. Res. 1011.
- H.R. 503 was received in the Senate on September 20, 2006,read for the
first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the
First Time.
- H.R. 503 was read the second time on September 21, 2006 and placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 631.
- Senate adjourned September 29, 2006 prior to the election.
Texas and Illinois State Law Timeline
- April 18, 2007 - The Illinois House of Representatives
approves H.B. 1711 to ban the slaughter of American horses in Illinois
for human consumption overseas, by nearly a two-to-one margin, a vote of
74-41.
- May 16, 2007 - The Illinois Senate approves legislation to ban horse slaughter by a vote of 39-16.
May 21, 2007 - The United States Supreme Court refuses
to hear an appeal by the horse slaughter industry in Texas. The industry
sought review of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision upholding
a 1949 Texas statute that bans horse slaughter.
- May 24, 2007 - Governor Rod Blagojevich signs H.B. 1711, banning horse slaughter in Illinois.
- July 5, 2007 - Judge Frederick J. Kapala of the federal district court in Rockford, Illinois upholds H.B. 1711.
- September 21, 2007 - A 3-judge panel from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously upholds the Illinois state
law banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption in that state.
- June 16, 2008 - The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to overturn
the Seventh Circuit decision upholding the Illinois state ban on horse
slaughter for human consumption.
Currently, there are no equine slaughterhouses in the U.S. - all of
the three remaining foreign-owned plants were closed by state laws and
federal court decisions upholding those laws in 2007. According to the
USDA, horses from other countries were imported and slaughtered in the
U.S. as a routine matter. In 2007, only 29,000 horses were slaughtered
in the U.S. prior to the closure of the last three plants, but horse
exports for slaughter increased greatly, to 79,000. As of today's date,
the slaughter of American horses for human consumption has increased by
5% (44,972 ytd in 2007 vs. 47,399 ytd in 2008) over last year,
indicating a massive increase in the export of our horses to Mexico and
Canada (retrieved on July 25, 2008 from
http://www.statcan.ca/trade/scripts7/tradesearch. cgi and
http://www.ams.usda/mnreports/al-ls635.txt)
_______________________________________
Public comments against horse slaughter
"Most Americans were horrified when they learned several years ago
that Kentucky Derby winner Ferdinand had been killed for human
consumption in Japan. Horses are not raised as livestock in this
country, and this time, Congress must ensure that there is no loophole
for denying them the protection that the public clearly wants them to
have."
Louisville Courier-Journal, Kentucky, July 23, 2006
"The horse has always held a hallowed place in our national identity,
much like the bald eagle. And just as no American would consider
ordering up a bald eagle, if only out of respect, so would none ask for a
horse steak.... Certain veterinary groups, rather ironically, oppose
the amendment. They claim that it is humane to put aging or
neglected horses out of their misery. But if anyone actually saw how
these noble beasts are slaughtered -- strung up by their hind legs and
bled -- they might think twice before supporting such conduct."
Washington Times, September 15, 2005
"... no horse is currently safe from that fate. Ferdinand, the 1986
Kentucky Derby winner, was killed in a Japanese slaughterhouse when his
stud services were no longer needed. This past spring, 41 wild mustangs
were slaughtered for food in a Texas plant after being purchased through
a program meant to give them new homes."
Louisville Courier-Journal, Kentucky September 13, 2005
"Horse slaughter has no place in the United States....Horse meat for
human consumption hasn't been sold in the United States for decades and
isn't even used in pet food here. If a horse is near the end of its
useful life, there are more humane ways for an owner to get rid of it.
Adoption groups offer horses a peaceful retirement, and if the horses
need to be euthanized, it can be done painlessly and humanely for a
couple hundred dollars.
St. Petersburg Times, Tampa Bay, September 13, 2005
"The bond between horses and humans is as close as the connection
between dogs or cats and their owners. The horse meat industry is not a
vital part of the American economy. We hope the Senate will pass this
humane amendment."
Charlston Gazette, West Virginia, September 13, 2005
"Long-established neighbors living adjacent to the plant cannot
open their windows or run their air conditioners without enduring the
most horrific stench. Children playing in their yards do so with the
noise of horses being sent to their deaths in the background. Landowners
have difficulty securing loans to develop their property....As a
community leader where we are directly impacted by the horse slaughter
industry, I can assure you the economic development return to our
community is
negative. The foreign-owned companies profit at our expense -- it is time for them to go."
-Mayor Bacon, Kaufman, Texas (Dallas Crown "hometown")
