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

9/25/08

Debate over horse meat gains new life - U.S. news- msnbc.com


Horses being transported to slaughter at a now-defunct Texas plant.



The Animal Welfare Institute says these horses, including one with cut and swollen eyes, were among animals being transported to slaughter at a now-defunct Texas plant. Such cases illustrate the inhumane treatment of many horses destined for the meat market, the group says.
Dixie Wilson / ARTEX

Mike Stuckey
Senior news editor

The emotional debate over slaughtering horses for human consumption gained new life in Washington this week as a House committee approved a measure that would ban the practice nationwide and halt the export of U.S. horses destined for dinner tables in other countries.

While it’s unclear whether the Judiciary Committee’s Tuesday approval of the slaughter ban will lead to passage by the full House and Senate before the clock runs out on the current session of Congress, the panel’s hearings refocused attention on an issue that has motivated animal-welfare groups for years.

Horse meat in package, bought in a Dutch supermarketImage via WikipediaOutraged by what they say is cruel treatment of horses sold for meat, the groups already have succeeded at forcing closure of the three remaining U.S. horse slaughterhouses — two in Texas and one in Illinois — in recent years. But since thousands of horses are still exported for slaughter in Canada and Mexico, and many states have no laws that would prohibit the opening of new plants, the groups have been seeking federal regulation since 2001.

“There’s absolutely no way to make it humane,” said Chris Heyde, deputy director of government and legal affairs for the Animal Welfare Institute, one of the ban’s principal backers. “It’s an industry that cannot be regulated to make it humane.”

So the “Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act,” sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of Judiciary, and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., would make it a crime punishable by up to three years in prison to possess or transport horse meat for human consumption or horses intended to be slaughtered for human meals.

A necessary option

But opponents of the law, including some cattle ranchers, horse breeders and veterinarians, say that the now-defunct U.S. slaughterhouses, regulated and inspected by the Department of Agriculture, were run in a humane fashion and provided a necessary option to deal with unwanted horses.

“From a welfare perspective, they’ve made things a lot worse,” said Mark Lutschaunig, director of governmental relations for the American Veterinary Medicine Association, which represents 76,000 U.S. vets. Lutschaunig said his group is hearing reports of a sharp increase in cases of horses being neglected and abandoned by owners who can no longer sell them at auction for slaughter.

Despite the fact that horse meat is widely eaten by Europeans and Asians, the vast majority of Americans have no interest in taking a bite out of Old Paint. Since no U.S. horses are raised for that purpose, they only come to the meat market as castoffs: old, sick, too unruly to ride or genetically deficient. Because horses are not regulated as meat animals, Heyde said, the process by which they are slaughtered is fraught with cruelty.

About 100,000 American horses are exported for slaughter in Mexico and Canada each year, roughly the same number as when the U.S. slaughterhouses were operating. There are about 9 million horses in the United States, according to federal estimates.

Harrowing stories, images

Web sites maintained by Heyde’s group and others contain harrowing accounts, photos and videos of horses being transported to the slaughterhouses. “Deprived of food, water or rest, the horses are forced onto double-decked cattle trailers” and hauled for 24 hours or more, according to the Animal Welfare Institute’s site. “Callous workers use fiberglass rods to poke and beat their faces, necks, backs and legs.” At one plant in Mexico, horses are “stabbed repeatedly” with knives in “a barbaric practice (that) simply paralyzes the animal. The horse is still fully conscious at the start of the slaughter process, during which he or she is hung by a hind leg, his or her throat slit and body butchered,” it says.

CONTINUED - page 2


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

7/17/08

Animal Welfare Institute and National Black Farmers Association Launch “Project Wanted Horse”

In response to the current unwanted horses discussion, the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and the National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) recently launched a national partnership aimed at helping American horses in need by finding them homes on farms operated by NBFA members.
The “Project Wanted Horse” partnership comes as Congress considers the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. The project, say the organizers, disproves bill opponents’ arguments that the campaign to end horse slaughter has resulted in a glut of unwanted horses in the United States and that slaughter is therefore necessary.

“One of the horse slaughter industry’s main arguments is that these horses are unwanted and have no homes to go to. Today, we’re standing up and standing together to demonstrate that this is simply untrue,” said Chris Heyde, deputy director of government and legal affairs for the Animal Welfare Institute, in a press release. “The coming together of our national organizations sends a significant message that these horses are valued and wanted.”

“Project Wanted Horse” places horses that would ordinarily go to slaughter on the farms operated by NBFA’s 94,000 members. The Animal Welfare Institute will oversee the placement of horses with NBFA members. Each placed animal will be accompanied by a legally binding contract ensuring quality lifetime care and that they will not be resold to slaughter. However, the organizers note that “Project Wanted Horse” is not intended to be a dumping ground for those horses.

Congress is currently considering the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S. 311/ H.R. 503), which would outlaw the transportation of horses either domestically or internationally for slaughter. The legislation is sponsored by Senators Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.).

The National Black Farmers Association is a non-profit, community organization founded in February of 1995, by John Boyd, Jr., of Baskerville, Virginia, a third generation farmer. The organization represents African American farmers in regulatory and legal matters.
Zemanta Pixie

6/27/08

Horse Slaughter: A Global View™: Reality check ...



6/27/08

Reality check ...







An unknown off-the-track racehorse slaughtered in the U.S., June 2008. Did you know him?





June 27, 2008 ~ EquusEditorial's work on the racehorse memorials and horse slaughter project returns little joy or encouragement. But today we are shocked and saddened at the truth which had escaped us until now, was so well hidden from us and no doubt from many of you out there.



Where were we? Our head in the clouds? How did we miss it? Maybe we're the only ones who were under the impression that horse slaughter had ended in the United States, with the closure of the three remaining slaughterhouses. Isn't that why the horses are transported now across the Canadian and Mexican borders to be slaughtered? Wasn't our next big hurdle to actually end that transport to once and for all save our horses from the whole tragic ordeal?



The public's focus has been turned to the inhumane slaughter methods outside the more "compassionate" United States. But did you know that it is still legal in most states to slaughter horses for human consumption? As well as for other purposes? We confirmed this with the Humane Society of the United States today, June 26, 2008.



We're not talking about sending dead horses to the rendering plant. We're talking about live horses taken to slaughter. And in the specific case that led us to this truth, we're talking about off-the-track racehorses slaughtered for zoo meat. That is, broken down, injured, abused, neglected, or ill racehorses dropped off by their owners who have taken the cowardly way out. Owners who no longer have need for the animals nor, obviously, any compassion for them. Owners who could not find it in their hearts or their pocketbooks to humanely euthanize the horses instead.



This feels more like the review of a ghastly low-budget horror movie than it does the truth of horse slaughter right here in our own country. We will be working on this story and publishing it in all its shameful facts as soon as possible.



We're giving you this heads-up first, compelled to share how our perception of U.S. horse slaughter has been shattered. The situation is more complex and further from resolution than we had thought, further away from sparing our horses such horror at the hands of humans.



Posted by EquusEditorial at 5:39 AM



The more I think about this, the more ambivalent I find myself becoming. The carnivores in the zoos have to eat something, and feeding deceased horses to zoo animals would be one way of solving the problem that catches so many horse owners off guard: What does on do with a dead horse?


 

I don't think I would have a problem with my horse being fed to zoo animals after his death. When you think about it, it's no worse than rendering, or even burying - for the worms and whatever else to feast on.




However, this article is not about feeding zoo animals horses that are already dead - it's about slaughtering them specifically for that purpose. Which of course is no more humane than slaughtering them for human consumption. I can't speak for others, but it was never about the human consumption thing for me. It was about how inhumane it is to ship horses in trailers intended for cattle, and to use slaughter practices designed for cattle. 




And, it was - and is - about they type of owner who would do this to a horse instead of spending the money to give their animal a humane death. I have no words to express my opinion of these people. So, we're back to square one, aren't we?




I honestly don't know. There is no way I can support horse slaughter for any purpose until they are guaranteed humane transport, and until slaughter practices are revamped to make them at least reasonably humane for horses. Transportation is the easy part, although many fight giving up the double decker trailers tooth and nail. I realize they are more economical, but even those tall enough for cattle are inherently unstable. I've seen an overturned double decker cattle trailer, and believe me, it was a sight I wish I'd never come across.




Double decker trailers tall enough for horses would be even more subject to accidents, and very unsafe for all concerned. And overhauling the slaughter process to make it humane for horses is even more problematic. Frankly, I don't know if it's even possible to come up with a mass slaughter routine that would be humane for horses, with their high strung nature and powerful flight reaction. 




Even worse, I have a feeling that horses euthanized with narcotics would not be suitable even for other animals to consume. So, how would your vet euthanize a horse in a way that would be humane for the horse, yet leave it acceptable for other animals to consume? I don't have any answers. How I wish I did...

 

6/3/08

Homes for Horses Coalition Launches Web Site

Another much needed resource for unwanted horses.

clipped from www.thehorse.com

The Homes for Horses Coalition has launched a new Web site, www.homesforhorses.org.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), along with the Animal Welfare Institute and several other groups, formed the Homes for Horses Coalition last July. Keith Dane, director of equine protection for the HSUS, said the coalition was designed to support equine-focused nonprofits.

read more at http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=11320

4/30/08

True Innocents Equine Rescue (TIER ) Used Tack Sale

From the Tack Sale Coordinator:

"TIER supporter Lyn M. sent me a nice heavy box full of stuff for our
upcoming tack sale. I'd been having some problems with my server and
couldn't log onto my email (seems to be working now) so Lyn kindly
sent it to our friends at All Tacked Up and I picked up the package
today.
Thanks so much Lyn M!"

The Used Tack Sale is our major fundraiser for the year. 100% of the
proceeds are used for the care and maintenance of TIER residents.

Feed costs have risen and most probably will continue to do so. We
have several old soldiers on pelleted feed for the bulk of their diet
and we have been forced to go to bagged pellets. Previously, pellets
were purchased by the ton and pumped into a 3 ton feeder/silo. Due
to the rising costs, distributors will not deliver less than 5 tons
of pellets. We are not in a financial position to purchase a 5 ton
feeder, nor do we have room to add another 2-3 ton feeder.
Purchasing by the bag (80 lb.) has increased the costs.

Hay cost have risen and so has the price of water. We really need
your help to make this fundraiser a success for the TIER residents.

So clean out those trunks, carefully open those closet doors & donate
any HORSE items/tack that you don't need or no longer use to TIER!

May 17, 2008 8:30 am-2:30 pm Mira Loma, CA

Tack donations are needed for this sale!

All donations must be received by May 12, 2008.

So clean out those trunks, carefully open those closet doors & donate
any HORSE items/tack that you don't need or no longer use to TIER!

Donations : For further information or if you have questions, contact
Peggy at tiervoluntier@yahoo.com or call (951) 360-8725. Donations
may also be dropped off at:

All Tacked Up, 343 6th St. Suite N, Norco, CA or after May 1st, at
their new location at 605 6th St.

All donations of tack, supplies, or funds are tax deductible! (EIN #
and donation form available.

Link for flyer: http://www.tierrescue.org/2008UsedTackSale.pdf

3/16/08

The Gift

My farrier, Matt, was over Friday to trim Indy and Ami. Neither of them wear shoes, but they need their regular trims just the same.

Matt is not only an excellent farrier, he's a great friend, and he only lives about ten minutes away. Over the years that he's taken care of my horses, we've come to know each other very well, and we discuss everything under the sun.

Friday we got talking about the whole slaughter/unwanted horses/owner responsibility thing. We agree that slaughter is not - or at least it shouldn't be - the answer to "unwanted" horses. We've both felt for a long time that owner responsibility - or the lack thereof - is the root cause of all these surplus horses, and that's what needs to be addressed. Owner education is the only real and humane solution.

Then Matt said something that I'll never forget. He said that we - that is, horse owners - seem to have forgotten what wonderful gifts our horses offer - the gift of riding them; the gift of working with them; the gift of just watching them; the gift of smelling their breath.

I think it was that last one that got to me the most, because it is a gift, just to smell their warm, sweet breath. I know many of you horse lovers know exactly what we mean.

What then is our responsibility to these unsurpassed creatures who give us so much? Is it - as Matt and I think - to keep our horses for the rest of their natural lives, or, failing that, make sure they go to a good home? At the end of their lives, is it our responsibility to ensure that they have a peaceful and painless exit from this world?

Or, is it okay to "dispose" of a horse that can't/won't fulfill the purpose we envisioned on purchase in any way available? Should we sell them to anyone who will meet our price without regard to what that person might have in mind for them? Should we send them to slaughter - with all it's attendant frightful possibilities - instead of providing them with euthanasia by a veterinarian? And, if slaughter is the best we feel we can do for our horses at the end of their "useful" lives, should we ever have owned them at all?

I've already stated my own opinions about these questions. I offer this post as food for thought.

1/25/08

The Debate Rages On

VEW White Paper



Horse Slaughter
Its Ethical Impact and Subsequent Response of the Veterinary Profession


A White Paper

Prepared by
Veterinarians for Equine Welfare





Introduction

Veterinarians for Equine Welfare (VEW) is a group of veterinarians committed to equine welfare, and as such we support measures to end horse slaughter including passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S. 311/H.R. 503). We are concerned about misinformation being transmitted to Congress and the broader public regarding horse slaughter. VEW believes that certain veterinary professional associations that are actively promoting horse slaughter are undermining our profession's integrity and the welfare of the horses we care for. In so doing these organizations, of which many of us are members, erroneously purport to speak for our entire profession. Veterinarians should put animal welfare at the top of their list of priorities, not relegate it to an also-ran concern.

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 that promotes cruelty and neglect and which claimed the lives of more than 100,000 American horses in 2007.

Given that the debate on horse slaughter is at a crucial juncture with the recent closure of the remaining domestic horse slaughter plants under state law, the surge in horses going to a grisly death in Canada and Mexico, and the opportunity currently before Congress to end the suffering of America's horses through speedy passage of the federal American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, VEW is compelled to inject its expertise into the arena. This White Paper will, from a professional veterinary perspective, address key points on the issue of horse slaughter and in so doing will lend further credence to calls for a rapid end to this wholly brutal and un-American trade.

1. Horse Slaughter is not humane euthanasia

It is the united opinion of VEW that horse slaughter is inhumane, and that it is an unacceptable way to end a horse's life under any circumstance. 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 worth noting that the suffering of horses in slaughter is accentuated by the very fact that they are not raised for slaughter. Horses going to slaughter have largely been accustomed to close human contact whether through racing, ranch work, pleasure riding, rodeo or any of the other ways in which horses are used in this country. While some are purposely sold into slaughter by their owners most end up at the abattoir through pure bad luck: they were sold at auction and the winning bidder was a �killer-buyer� working for one of the slaughter plants. To suddenly be treated as pure livestock must be disorienting and frightful, and can only compound their suffering as they proceed to slaughter.

We believe that it is an unethical and dangerous practice for the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) to attempt to equate horse slaughter with humane euthanasia.

2. Transport of horses to slaughter compounds equine suffering

Despite the presence of federal regulations governing the transport of horses to slaughter,[1] horses continue to suffer immeasurably en route to slaughter. Current regulations are paltry, allowing for horses to be transported for more than 24 hours without food, water or rest. Heavily pregnant mares can be moved to slaughter, as can horses with broken limbs or who are blind in one eye. Further, the regulations only cover the final leg of the journey, so slaughter-bound horses moved from auction to feedlot, for instance, are not covered by the rule.

The much touted (by the U.S. Department of Agriculture) ban on the use of double-decker vehicles to haul horses to slaughter only came into effect in December of 2006, despite pressure from welfare advocates to implement the ban with the final rule, which went into effect in early 2002 (the "double-decker ban" was phased in so as not to unduly impact the slaughter industry financially). Further and most significantly, because the ban only applies to the final leg of the journey to slaughter as previously mentioned, haulers can still move slaughter-bound horses across the country on double-deck conveyances designed for cattle and pigs and need only switch to single-deck trailers before arriving at the slaughter plant. 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 U.S. Department of Agriculture is now seeking to broaden the scope of the transport regulations to cover all legs of the journey to slaughter but it is too little too late, particularly given that the domestic horse slaughter plants have been shuttered.

3. Use of Captive-Bolt in Horse Slaughter Wholly Unacceptable

The use of the captive-bolt gun, which is commonly used in the slaughter of livestock (including horses), has been a point of great contention in the debate on horse slaughter. Because it can theoretically be used by a veterinarian - in specific circumstances � to euthanize horses, the AVMA has tried to equate its use in the slaughterhouse with humane euthanasia. To clarify, the captive-bolt gun is a mechanical method by which, in ideal circumstances, animals can 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 own guidelines, the head of the animal to which the captive bolt is being applied must be restrained[2] or still and a highly skilled individual ought to administer the fatal blow. In the slaughterhouse none of these best case scenarios are in place: the horse is most likely 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 controversy surrounding 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 within 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 deemed "conditionally acceptable" and 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. When used in the slaughter context it is not equitable with humane euthanasia.

4. Horses stabbed to death in Mexican slaughter plants

Recent investigations by the San Antonio News-Express[3] reveal that the use of the "puntilla knife" on horses 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.

5. Unfounded claims that banning horse slaughter will lead to an increase in equine abandonment and neglect

No increase in the abandonment or neglect of horses has been documented since the closure of the three domestic slaughter plants in the earlier part of 2007. This is not unsurprising. The horse slaughter business is not providing a service for the disposal of �unwanted� horses, but rather is preying on largely healthy, marketable horses[4] that might otherwise be used for more 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[5].

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.[6] 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.[7]

6. Horse slaughter does not provide a humane service for "unwanted" horses

The entire argument that horses that go to slaughter are unwanted is unfounded. 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.

7. The promotion of genuine humane euthanasia for "unwanted" horses is absent from the repertoire of the pro-horse slaughter lobby

Proponents of horse slaughter paint the industry as a humane service by which "unwanted" horses can be disposed of. It is hard to believe that most veterinarians faced with a client who has a horse that is old, sick or otherwise no longer wanted would suggest that the horse in question should be stuck on a truck and hauled thousands of miles to slaughter. Instead, the veterinarian would most likely suggest truly humane euthanasia via chemical injection, after which the carcass can be buried, incinerated, sent to landfill or rendered.[8] The absolute absence of the subject of actual humane euthanasia from the agenda of the pro-horse slaughter lobby on Capitol Hill, including the AVMA, is stunning and telling.

Yet while the AVMA's contention that horse slaughter is a form of humane euthanasia is used on Capitol Hill by slaughter proponents to block passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, the AVMA does not even advocate slaughter as a form of euthanasia to the general public. To point, the association�s brochure on equine euthanasia, ("How do I know it is time?: Equine Euthanasia"), speaks only of veterinarian-administered euthanasia, not slaughter, and states:

"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 euthanatized is a serious one, and is seldom easy to make." [9]

The AVMA and other pro-horse slaughter advocates appear to be advancing a dual message: to their clients the use of chemical euthanasia as the only option, but on Capitol Hill they advocate captive bolt as the preferred method of "euthanasia."

8. Cost of euthanasia

The average cost of having a horse humanely euthanized by a veterinarian and their body disposed of is approximately $225, a relative drop in the bucket compared to the monthly and overall cost of keeping a horse. It is VEW's contention that this expense is simply a part of responsible horse ownership and one that most horse owners already bear without any reluctance.

9. Proper disposal of horse carcasses no longer slaughtered

Pro-horse slaughter organizations have argued that an end to horse slaughter and the supposed need to dispose of an estimated 100,000 horses each year will result in environmental damage. This argument is flawed on two fronts.

First, it is assumed that all horses currently going to slaughter would need to be disposed of by some other method if horse slaughter were prohibited. As stated earlier most horses going to slaughter are in good condition and are marketable for other purposes[10]. Even assuming 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 euthanized each year without notable impact. On the face of this situation, another 1 or 100,000 horses will make no significant impact.

Secondly and an even more compelling in dismissing this argument is the fact that in the overall picture of livestock disposal, horses aren't even a blip on the screen. According to a study commissioned by the National Renderers Association[11] in which no mention of horses was made, almost 3.5 billion pounds of livestock and poultry mortalities were reported in 2000. During that same year, the US based horse slaughter facilities slaughtered 47,134 horses. Had all of these horses been disposed of by non-slaughter methods resulting in the need to dispose of approximately 47,134,000 pounds of matter (based on an average weight per horse of 1,000 pounds), this would have represented a measly 1.3% increase in the total livestock and poultry mortalities that year.

Conclusion

Horse slaughter is not a form of humane euthanasia, nor is it a "necessary evil." The horse slaughter industry is a predatory one that exists only because there is a profit to be made by fulfilling consumer demand in overseas markets for horse flesh. Rather than aiding horse welfare, as slaughter proponents contend, horse slaughter results in very tangible animal cruelty and suffering while engendering abuse and neglect. Currently, horse owners have a choice of what to do at the end of their horse's life - pay to do the right thing or be paid to do the wrong thing. In promoting horse slaughter as a form of humane euthanasia, professional veterinary associations do a disservice to the animals they are meant to care for. For these reasons, VEW supports an end to horse slaughter and advocates quick passage of The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S. 311/H.R. 503).


[1] Commercial Transportation of Equines to Slaughter, 9 CFR Part 88, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/animal_id/9cfr88.shtml
[2] The AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia (formerly the 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia), 2007
[3] http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/mexico/stories/MYSA093007.01A.horseslaughter.3496288.html
[4] �A survey of the condition of horses arriving at two Texas slaughter plants indicated that 92.3 percent arrived in good condition,..� Guidelines for Handling and Transporting Equines to Slaughter by Temple Grandin, Ph.D. in Guidebook for USDA�s Slaughter Horse Transport Program issued December 2001.
[5] No Abandoned Horses Found:, Representative Ed Whitfield, Florida Times-Union.
[6] Horse Illustrated - July 2002 quoting Carolyn Stull, Ph.D., animal welfare specialist at the Veterinary Medical Extension at the University of California, Davis on the 1998 California ballot ban of horse slaughter. �Stull also notes that there has been no increase in the number of horses being neglected in California as a result of the law. �One concern when the law passed was that there might be an increase in neglected or starved horses,� she says. �This has not been the case.��
[7] In 2002, the Illinois based Hooved Animal Humane Society (HAHS) received 262 complaints of potential hooved animal (primarily equine) abuse and neglect in the state of Illinois. As of December 23, The Society has received 165 complaints for the year 2003.-- HAHS testimony to Illinois General Assembly in 2003.
[8] http://www.vetsforequinewelfare.org/facts.php
[9] �How do I know it is time?: Equine Euthanasia� April 2005, http://www.avma.org/communications/brochures/euthanasia/equine/equine_euth_brochure.asp
[10] Senate Report 110-229, �TO AMEND THE HORSE PROTECTION ACT REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION on S. 311,� November 14, 2007, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(sr229)
[11] Livestock Mortalities: Methods of Disposal and Their Potential Cost - March 2002, National Renderers Association, http://www.renderers.org/Economic_Impact/MortalitiesFinal.pdf

Updated January 2008

12/22/07

Bullseye!



We here in Warsaw, IN certainly dodged a bullet with the ice storms that have plagued so much of the country. We only had one day when it was really slippery, and we never lost power at all. However, we weren't quite so lucky with this last winter storm. It was snow instead of ice - thank goodness! - but little ole Warsaw saw some of the heaviest snowfall of the entire region - some 14 inches, and that's not counting the fact that there was a lot of blowing and drifting...

Even though it wasn't bitter cold, the wind continued to howl the next day, and even Indy seemed a bit intimidated by it all. Later in the day however, I saw him venture out to the gate even though he didn't go outside the paddock. They both seemed content do stay up by the barn and munch hay.

I knew Indy couldn't contain his curiosity for long though. Sure enough, today he was venturing all the way to the cross fence - and there was Ami right behind him. Some of the drifts were knee deep even for him, and he seemed to take pleasure in galloping through them. The more practical Ami just walked.



Actually, the most difficult part was just getting to the barn the first morning. The drifts were impossible to walk through, even for Mike. He couldn't even dent them with a shovel. Finally, he had to pick his way, clearing a path around the drifts. It wasn't the most direct route to the barn, but under the circumstances we weren't complaining!

The barn cats however were complaining. There was a snow drift blocking their regular "kitty entrance" in the front door of the barn. There they were - all 28 of them - sitting right behind the door when we opened it! What a cat-tastrophe!

Even when the kitties got out of the barn, the drifts were too deep for them to maneuver - they just sank! It didn't take them long to discover our path though, and they've been frolicking up and down, to and from the barn ever since.

By now of course, Indy and Ami have their weaving trails all over the pasture. Viewed from upstairs it looks like a bunch of drunks have been wandering around out there. Horses are constitutionally incapable of walking in a straight line. It must be a prey animal thing. They have been enjoying themselves, and that's the important thing. Indy - who was born in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan - says this is the first decent winter he's seen since he moved here to the southland.

10/7/07

Is Horse Slaughter A Necessary Evil?

If you have been swayed by the argument put forth by the pro-slaughter groups that abuse and neglect of horses will increase, and that shipping horses to Mexico to be slaughtered - a much worse fate than slaughter in the US - will also greatly increase, please follow the link below to read this entire article.

Horses must be protected from slaughter - welfare group | Horsetalk - International horse news

October 4, 2007

An animal welfare group says claims that horses are
facing worse fates in Mexico and Canada since US slaughter ended are a
"red herring" argument.


The Animal Welfare Institute says that now horse slaughter has
effectively ended in the United States, "the pro-horse slaughter camp
is claiming it was right about the need to keep slaughter an option in
the US." The AWI is actively working to pass the American Horse
Slaughter Prevention Act into law.


"They say that our horses are facing a far worse fate in Mexico and
Canada than they were when they could be slaughtered in America. This
is yet another 'red-herring' argument advanced by the pro-horse
slaughter side to distract humane Americans from the ultimate goal of
protecting all American horses from slaughter via passage of the
American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S. 311/HR. 503). This
legislation will end the slaughter of American horses here and their
export for slaughter abroad," a spokesman said.

read more

If you care about horses in the slightest degree, please

  1. Contact your own Congressman and ask him/her to support H.R.297.
    • Locate your Congressman here

  2. Contact your Senators and ask them to cosponsor S.576.
    • Locate your Senator here

Horse Slaughter In The News

Horse slaughter in the news - Horsetalk - equestrian event news, equine news - Horsetalk

Horse slaughter in the news - October 4, 2007






4.10.07:

Horses must be protected from slaughter - welfare group

22.9.07:

Court's killer blow ends US horse slaughter

12.8.07:

Premarin: Hormone therapy hurts women and horses

10.8.07:

'Brazen coup' by horse slaughter company

25.7.07:

Live aid event for horses

25.7.07:

Dog fighting allegations highlight dog and horse abuse

20.7.07:

Cavel allowed to continue slaughtering horses

15.7.07:

Horse slaughter injunction denied in district court

7.7.07:

Judge upholds ban on horse slaughter

30.6.07:

Illinois slaughter plant shut down again

29.6.07:

ILPH highlights slaughter transport laws

27.6.07:

Humane Society praises sentate over slaughter ban

16.6.07:

10-day reprieve for Illinois horse slaughter plant

10.6.07:

Rescue operation buys 32 horses from Cavel

2.6.07:

Illinois horse slaughter allowed to resume during legal challenge

30.5.07:

End of the line for Texas horse slaughter

30.5.07:

Kaimanawa wild horses - latest

26.5.07:

Illinois horse slaughter trade at an end

25.5.07:

The relationship between horse slaughter and reported cases of abuse and neglect - a study

24.5.07:

Texas horse slaughterhouses remain closed

19.5.07:

More strength for unwanted horse group

17.5.07:

Illinois Senate votes to end slaughter

17.5.07:

Gordon Ramsay's horse meat show condemned

17.5.07:

Racecourse denies involvement in Ramsay's horse meat show

17.5.07:

Gordon Ramsay in the manure over horse meat

15.5.07:

Top race winning owners want horse slaughter ban

15.5.07:

Horse slaughter debate on rollercoaster ride

12.5.07:

Kaimanawa wild horses face slaughter

10.5.07:

Horse charity slates Gordon Ramsay's show

9.5.07:

Chef Ramsay looks at horse meat

7.5.07:

Miracle foal is named

5.5.07:

Horse slaughter gets go-ahead to resume

30.4.07:

Life after so much death: a miracle foal

28.4.07:

Wild horses win again in US House of Representatives

27.4.07:

Horse slaughter bill advances in US Senate

21.4.07:

Illinois takes lead against horse slaughter

20.4.07:

Another victory for anti horse-slaughter lobbyists

16.4.07:

Horses in need get second chance at new centre

5.4.07:

Packs of horses attack defenseless trees in Kentucky

30.3.07:

Horse slaughter line at a standstill

30.3.07:

New voice for unwanted horses

29.3.07:

US horse slaughter industry on the ropes

23.3.07:

Horse slaughter story 'wildly inacccurate'

21.3.07:

Public outcry at "horse waste" from slaughter plant

21.3.07:

Horse slaughterhouse under fire for environmental issues

20.3.07:

Queensland wild horse muster in limbo

18.3.07:

Humane society dismisses horse dumping claims

16.3.07:

US vet group joins horse slaughter debate

11.3.07:

Pro horse-slaughter bill condemned

9.3.07:

Bill to stop wild horse slaughter voted on

7.3.07:

Texas rules against horse slaughter houses

29.2.07:

Illinois bill could end horse slaughter

14.2.07:

Horse slaughter plant continues killing

30.1.07:

House leaders fight ban on horse slaughter

21.1.07:

Two of three US horse slaughter plants face closure

10.1.07:

Unwanted horses get new advocates

8.1.07:

Kentucky takes steps to ban horse slaughter



8/23/07

Slaughter Fact Sheet From The Fund For Horses

Slaughter USA: Fact Sheet - The Fund for Horses

Slaughter USA: Fact Sheet


On This Page

* Introduction.
* Why does this industry still exist?
* How many horses are slaughtered in the United States?
* What types of horses are slaughtered?
* Where do the horses come from?
* How are the horses slaughtered?
* If slaughtered is banned, where will all the horses go?
* If horse slaughter is banned, won't abuse and neglect increase?

Introduction

One of the most baffling issues surrounding the equine world, and one that many Americans are still unaware of, is that every week in this country our young, healthy horses are slaughtered for human consumption overseas. The largest number are Quarter Horses, although Thoroughbred race horses, and even some of our wild Mustangs are routinely slaughtered. Their meat is processed, freeze packed and shipped to countries like Belgium, France, Italy and Japan, where it is considered a delicacy.

Why does this industry still exist?

Horse slaughter exists in the United States for one reason and one reason only — for the sole purpose of providing horsemeat for human consumption in foreign markets.

Although the number of horses slaughtered declined sharply for a period of years, there has been a recent resurgence in demand. Horse meat is viewed as "clean meat" and a good alternative to beef and other traditional meats because of BSE and other contamination scares. Europeans and Asians who consume horse flesh are willing to pay a high price for American horsemeat, which is described by butchers and purveyors of horsemeat as the very best on the market.

"I only buy American meat, which is red and firm. In butchering terms we call it 'well-structured', the best you can get. Out of a thousand animals, only the American ones are really worth buying. But they don't eat horsemeat in America. They raise horses for foreigners."

A Butcher in France.

Conseqently, business is thriving for the three foreign-owned slaughter plants operating in the U.S., two in Texas and the other in Illinois. If current trends continue, it is highly likely that demand is only going to increase and so is the slaughtering of our horses.

How many horses are slaughtered in the United States?

According to the USDA, more than 50,000 horses were slaughtered in 2003. With the re-opening of Cavel International in Illinois in 2004, the number rose to more than 66,000, and in 2005, nearly 95,000 of our horses were slaughtered for their meat.

This does not include the approximately 20,000 - 30,000 horses that are exported to Mexico to be slaughtered in their abattoirs, or the thousands exported to Canada.

Together, these numbers represent about 1% of the total number of horses in the U.S., and the entire industry is only .001% of the size of the U.S. meat industry.

What types of horses are being slaughtered? Aren't these old, sick horses?

According to 2001 field studies conducted by Temple Grandin et al., 70% of all horses at the slaughter plant were in good, fat, or obese condition; 72% were considered to be "sound" of limb; 84% were of average age; and 96% had no behavioral issues. Slaughter plants do not want old, sick horses for obvious reasons.

Where do the horses come from?

Horses are not raised for slaughter as they are not traditional food animals, so they must be bought. Licensed horse dealers, known as "killer buyers," act as middlemen for the slaughterhouses and frequent the auctions where horses are sold. Mass quantities of horses are bought by these dealers at unbelievably cheap prices, who then transport the horses and resell them to the slaughterhouses for profit. Many times an auction house and the dealer will not turn away an unfit animal, because as long as it can live till it gets to a slaughterhouse, they can be killed for their hides. These horses are called "skinners." Slaughterhouses typically have a tannery either on site or nearby for this reason.

A number of the horses who end up at slaughterhouses are stolen, and can disappear without a trace. However, statistics from one of the largest groups that assist owners in the recovery of their stolen horses, Stolen Horse International (netposse.org) show that approximately 60% of stolen horses are killed at slaughter plants.

How are the horses actually slaughtered?

Horses are transported, often thousand of miles, from all over the country to Texas and Illinois in double-decker trailers designed for cattle in all types of weather with no food or water. Often there is not enough clearance for the horses to hold their heads in a fully upright position.

No consideration is given to the gender or the condition of the horses as they are crammed into these trucks. Horses are often injured and some even arrive at the slaughterhouse dead. The ones who survive the ordeal of transportation are held in pens until it is their turn to be butchered. The horses stand in the killing line smelling the blood, sensing the terror ahead. They are electrocuted or speared into the "kill box" where they shake violently, falling, unable to stand from fear.

According to federal law, horses must be rendered unconscious prior to slaughter, usually by captive bolt. With their long necks and aversion to anything approaching their foreheads, many horses require multiple strikes. However, some are improperly stunned, even with repeated blows.

The USDA's March 1998 report, Special Report on Humane Slaughter Methods and AnteMortem, shows the animals can and do regain consciousness after they have been stunned. Therefore some are still conscious when shackled, hoisted by a rear leg, and cut across the throat to be bled out.

Quote from a slaughterhouse worker:

"You move so fast, you don't have time to wait till a horse bleeds out. You skin him as he bleeds. Sometimes a horse's nose is down in the blood, blowing bubbles, and he suffocates."

From the book "Slaughterhouse" by Gail Eisnitz

A major misconception is that animals being readied for slaughter are stunned with a captive bolt in order to make the process more humane. The fact is, the captive bolt stunning mechanism was designed to protect slaughterhouse workers from the flailing limbs of terrified animals and to increase the speed of the production line.

If horse slaughter is banned, where will all the horses go?

The number of horses slaughtered in 1990 was a staggering 350,000, a number that dropped to an all time low of 42,000 in 2002. Between 1992 and 1993 alone, the number of horses slaughtered dropped 79,000. These decreases did not create a glut of "unwanted horses." Society absorbed these horses, and the market remained stable, just as it will when horse slaughter is eliminated altogether.

The phrase "unwanted horses" is a myth created by horse slaughter supporters. The number of horses slaughtered each year is the one used by them to arrive at the number of so-called "unwanted horses" for the same time period. In actuality, the number of horses slaughtered each year is the number of horses the horse slaughter plants have the capacity to butcher and process.

There are many alternatives to horse slaughter. Horses can be given another chance at life through retraining and adoption programs as pleasure horses, with rescues, retirement homes, and sanctuaries. Horses can also enjoy second careers as Mounted Police horses, at riding schools and as therapy horses.

If a horse becomes old, infirm or mortally ill, then the horse should be euthanized by a qualified veterinarian. There are a wide variety of options for disposing of their bodies that range from the costly to economical. These include burial (where permitted), cremation, rendering, composting and landfills. Texas A&M, in response to this question, released a special report on composting as a viable alternative that would be both environmentally and politically beneficial, predicting that this could become a big market when horse slaughter is banned.

If horse slaughter is banned, won't abuse and neglect increase?

California banned horse slaughter in 1998. California has experienced no increase in abuse case, and even noted a decrease 3 years following the ban. During the 4 years that Cavel was closed, Illinois saw a noticeable decrease in abuse and/or neglect cases. Texas, which had the only two slaughter plants in 2003, had among the nations highest rates of cruelty and theft.

The conclusion is clear – horse slaughter does not decrease abuse and neglect but actually encourages it.

7/7/07

Judge Upholds Ban On Horse Slaughter

July 7, 2007

A US District Court Judge has denied Cavel International's attempt to declare a recently enacted Illinois law making it a crime to slaughter horses for human consumption unconstitutional.

US District Court Judge Frederick Kapala rendered the decision on Thursday against Cavel International, the last remaining horse slaughter plant in the US.

On May 25, 2007, Cavel had filed suit in federal court challenging the enforceability of Illinois' law banning horse slaughter. In early June, Judge Kapala granted Cavel a temporary restraining order, preventing the state from prosecuting the slaughterhouse under the law. He subsequently extended that protection for 10 business days but then denied any further injunctive relief to Cavel on June 25, 2007. Judge Kapala did not believe he had jurisdiction to make any further determinations on the merits of this case due to an appeal pending in the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. However, on July 3rd, the 7th Circuit ordered Judge Kapala to proceed on Cavel's request for further injunctive relief and with a final decision on the merits of the case.

Judge Kapala analyzed Cavel's arguments that the Illinois state law is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, a violation of the Commerce Clause, and a violation of the state's police power. In rendering his decision against Cavel he found that the slaughterhouse "failed to demonstrate any constitutional infirmity" in the state law.

"We are very pleased to have a federal court ruling that upholds the constitutionality of Illinois' state law banning horse slaughter," said Tracy Silverman, an attorney with the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI). "This decision is one more important victory on the road to banning horse slaughter in America once and for all."

Attorneys for Cavel International may appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. However, the ruling means that the doors remain shut on the slaughter plant, sparing the lives of thousands of America's horses.

AWI is being represented in this matter by the nationally renowned law firm of Patton Boggs.

The Animal Welfare Institute, founded in 1951, is a non-profit organization dedicated to reducing the sum total of pain and fear inflicted on animals by humans. AWI's legislative division, the Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL), is leading the national campaign to end horse slaughter and advocating passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

For more information:

Horse slaughter in the news

Animal Welfare Institute
Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL)


6/11/07

More On Horse Slaughter

Rescue operation buys 32 horses from Cavel - International horse news; equestrian event news, equine news - Horsetalk

Rescue operation buys 32 horses from Cavel

June 11, 2007

A horse rescue operation in Colorado successfully negotiated the
purchase of 32 horses left at Cavel International's slaughter plant
when Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich signed legislation to
immediately ban horse slaughter in the state late last month.


Horses remaining at the plant when it closed were slated for shipment to either Canada or Mexico for slaughter.


The horses were bought by Front Range Equine Rescue, a 501(c)3 non-profit horse rescue.


Two of the rescued horses were humanely euthanized as their
pre-existing conditions left both horses in extreme pain and were
untreatable. One mare was severely crippled with arthritis and barely
able to walk; another gelding had laminitis so progressed the coffin
bone was rotating through the hoof. Assessments are being made on each
of the remaining horses. Unfortunately it is believed that at least two
more horses will require humane euthanasia as well.


The rescued horses were moved last week to four locations where they
will be quarantined for about three weeks. The horses will be monitored
for contagious illnesses such as strangles or upper respiratory
infections which can happen due to the stress and exposure to unhealthy
conditions during their ordeal


Unfortunately, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that allows Cavel International in Illinois to resume slaughter operations, despite Governor Blagojevich signing the bill outlawing it last week.

The order blocks the new state law while a lawsuit that Cavel filed against Illinois is considered. The next hearing in the case is June 14, when the restraining order could either be canceled or extended.

According to the Society for Animal Protective Legislation, that organization will be filing documents in conjunction with the Animal Welfare Institute opposing Cavel's attempt to abuse the court system. Patton Boggs is the law firm working on the case


5/25/07

Will Ending Horse Slaughter Create More "Unwanted" Horses?

The relationship between horse slaughter and reported cases of abuse and neglect - Horsetalk - equestrian features on training, horse care, equine breeding and more

The relationship between horse slaughter and reported cases of abuse and neglect

May 25, 2007

A study by John Holland

Article © 2007

This article may not be reproduced

in any form without prior permission.

The "Unwanted Horse" theory

The "unwanted horse" theory is the single most frequently cited argument in support of horse slaughter in the United States. This theory contends that there are more horses produced in the United States each year than are needed for recreational, sport, and other non-slaughter purposes. The theory then contends that horse slaughter acts as a "relief valve" and that if it were not for this channel these unwanted horses would begin accumulating. The theory goes on to warn that these horses would be neglected and abused unless the government stepped in to rescue them.

As an argument in favor of horse slaughter, this theory has two distinct advantages. The first advantage is that at face value the theory seems very plausible, as the numbers of horses being slaughtered sound so large that it is hard to imagine how they might be absorbed if slaughter were ended.

The second great advantage is that the theory allows the person or organization using it to claim that by opposing a ban on horse slaughter, they are really doing what is best for the horses. This is particularly important for organizations such as the AQHA (American Quarter Horse Assoc.), AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Assoc.) and AAEP (American Assoc. of Equine Practitioners), who are expected to represent the best interests of the species, and for politicians who don't wish to lose the support of animal-friendly constituents. But is the theory supported by the evidence?

Looking Closer

The first contraindication to the unwanted horse theory is the realization that as large as the annual horse slaughter numbers appear, they represent only about 1% of the horse population in the United States. It is rare that a population of any kind cannot absorb such a small increase or decrease in supply. This is just the first of many bits of negative evidence.

One proponent of horse slaughter, Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, has gone so far as to circulate a letter¹ to his colleagues in the House of Representatives actually projecting the number of surplus horses that will accumulate in the decade following an end to slaughter, and estimating the cost to the government of warehousing these horses to be $530 million by 2016. In making this prediction, Goodlatte was using the assumption of a constant rate of production of unwanted horses. This is the easiest version of the "unwanted horse theory" to dispel.

The graph "Horses Slaughtered by Year"² is a test case for the concept that there are a relatively constant number of unwanted horses produced each year. Had we made the assumption in 1989 that the number of horses killed that year were still going to be produced in future years (the black line), we would have experienced an almost continuous drop in slaughter for the next decade and we would have found that by the end of 2003 there were over three million surplus horses unaccounted for. Clearly these horses were simply absorbed into the population.

Under the theory, the only explanation for these missing "surplus horses" would be that the horse population as a whole had been declining during this period and that the number of surplus horses was not a constant, but rather a fixed percentage of the population. The fixed percentage argument is clearly more reasonable than the fixed number hypothesis.

A search of available population data shows that there is no one set of complete numbers, but Freeman³ took all the available studies and statistics and estimated that during this period horse populations were in fact rising at a 3 to 5% rate per year. If this were taken into account in the graph above, the horizontal black line should be rising across the chart to over 500,000 horses per year by the end of 2003 (3% per year compounded), and this would result in far more than 3 million "surplus" horses for the period.

There are indeed more horses in the population, but there has been no government welfare program for these horses, no cost to the taxpayers, and no flood of homeless horses. Again, even with the most conservative assumptions the theory of a constant source of unwanted horses is completely discredited.

Faced with this evidence, the proponents of the unwanted horse theory quickly replaced the static supply model with an adaptive model which holds that the rate of slaughter adapts to the number of unwanted horses and thus it will vary from year to year. This model neglects a more straight forward explanation for the drop in slaughter numbers shown above, which is that most of the original 12 horse slaughter houses in operation in 1989 closed due to lack of demand over the course of the 1990s. The dynamic model would also seem to be conveniently untestable except for the availability of some interesting data surrounding an event that occurred in 2002.

Testing the Dynamic Model

The dynamic model assumes that the slaughter industry is for the most part adjusting its slaughter rate to absorb the unwanted horses through some inverse version of the law of supply and demand. If this were true, then a sudden and significant drop in slaughter capacity would throw the balance out because the industry could not adjust immediately to the surplus of unwanted horses. As luck would have it, just such an event occurred on Easter Sunday of 2002 when the Cavel slaughter plant in DeKalb Illinois burned to the ground.

By the time of Cavel burning, only three slaughter plants were operating in the United States and the rate of slaughter was back on the increase. The three plants had slaughtered 56,332 horses in 2001, but with Cavel off line for eight months of 2002, that number decreased to 42,312. By 2003 the two remaining plants had stepped up production to take up some of the slack.

In the graph "Horses Slaughtered or Exported for Possible Slaughter" the numbers of horses exported to Canada, Mexico, and Japan have been added to the number slaughtered in the United States. This sum is shown in yellow on the top curve of the graph. This line represents all horses possibly slaughtered from the United States. Again, by assuming that all horses exported to these three countries were slaughtered we are making the most conservative assumption. In reality current statistics show that this assumption is quite accurate and over 90% of the horses exported to these countries typically do go to slaughter.

What makes the closing and reopening of Cavel interesting is that there are solid statistics on the number of abuse and neglect cases in Illinois around this period. The other element that makes for an ideal test is that the remaining slaughter capacity was then almost 1,000 miles away in Texas. This meant that the "unwanted" horses from the Illinois area would be less attractive to killer buyers because they would have to transport them either to Texas or over the borders to Canada or Mexico. Proponents of the theory have attempted to explain what happened after Cavel burned by claiming that the surplus horses from Illinois were probably sent to these places. This is not the case as the "Horses Slaughtered or Exported for Possible Slaughter"&sup4; clearly shows.

Assumptions

We have clearly established that the bulk of the horses that would have been slaughtered by Cavel in the period between its burning and reopening were not sent elsewhere for slaughter. It could reasonably be argued that the rate of slaughter of Illinois horses probably dropped nearly to zero after the burning. At the very least Illinois horses were much less likely to be slaughtered than those from states in closer proximity to Texas. However, the calculations that follow are based on the extremely conservative assumption that the horses slaughtered during this period continued to be drawn from Illinois at the same proportion they had been when Cavel was operating.

It is clear that between 2000 and 2001 the rate of slaughter was on the increase, and that had Cavel not burned it appears that this line representing horses slaughtered and exported would have continued upward to the 122,000 level it reached in 2005 when Cavel was back in full operation the whole year.

Therefore, any mechanism the plants might have for adjusting to the supply of unwanted horses clearly could not operate fast enough to keep over 20,000 horses from falling through the cracks in 2002, and a similar number in 2003. The lighter shaded area therefore represents horses that should have been surplus from this event according to the unwanted horse theory.

To study the effect of this disturbance in processing capacity on the rate of abuse and neglect it is useful to plot the abuse rate against the slaughter rate.

According to the unwanted horse theory one would not expect the effect of a loss of slaughter capacity to be immediate. Instead, this effect should grow as the unwanted horses accumulated. The first thing one notices about the above graph is that this clearly is not the case. Between 2000 and 2001, both slaughter and neglect were increasing. According to the unwanted horse theory, this would indicate that horses were either not being slaughtered in sufficient numbers (unwanted horses were accumulating), or that there was some additional causation for the increasing abuse and neglect. For the year in which Cavel burned, the rate of slaughter diminished, and abuse continued to rise at the same rate it had been increasing before the fire. To some extent this can be explained by the fact that not enough additional unwanted horses had accumulated to have an effect in eight months since the plant burned.

In this case, however, we would certainly expect abuse to have increased rapidly by the end of 2003, but instead of rising abruptly, the rate of abuse actually stopped increasing and began dropping slightly. These are simply visual observations that call the unwanted horse theory into question. The real question remains as to whether we can numerically show any confirmation of the theory that abuse and neglect should increase as unwanted horses accumulate.

The Search for the Factor

If the theory that horse slaughter relieves abuse and neglect were true, then we should be able to find a factor by which these two things were related in the window of time just discussed. Furthermore this factor should be negative. For example, if we found a factor of -2, then we could predict that if we increased horse slaughter by 1%, the abuse rate should drop by 2%. Conversely, if we decreased horse slaughter by 1%, abuse and neglect should increase by 2%.

Four formulas were used to attempt to find this magic factor that would quantify the abuse and neglect relationship. The first formula related each year's percentage change in abuse to the percentage change in slaughter for the previous year. This simple rule allows that the accumulation or reduction of unwanted horses will begin to at least have some effect by the next year. When this calculation is done for each year, and the five yearly factors are averaged, the result is a positive factor of 1.04. In other words, this factor predicts that if we increase slaughter by 1% in a given year, we can on average expect a 1.04% increase in abuse the next year. This clearly contradicts the unwanted horse theory.

The second formula used related the percentage change in abuse in any given year to the percentage change in slaughter in that same year. The five yearly factors were then averaged and the result was again a positive factor, but this time of 2.73. In other words, if we reduced slaughter by 1%, we could expect abuse to go down by 2.73%. This is again in contradiction to the theory.

A third formula was applied. This formula was based on the percent change of each year with respect to the base year of 2000. This formula also yielded a positive factor of 2.54! In all three cases the attempt to derive a relationship between changes in the rate of slaughter and changes in the rate of abuse yields a result in opposition to the theory that slaughter relieves abuse.

A fourth test was applied to the numbers based on the calculation of the approximate number of accumulated unslaughtered horses each year due to the drop in processing capacity. The slope of the resulting curve was not monotonic as would be predicted by the "unwanted horse" theory. In the year before the fire and before any horses accumulated, the abuse rate increased by the same magnitude as it did when the accumulation went from zero to an estimated 20,600 at the end of the year Cavel closed. Then, when in the next year the number of unslaughtered horses doubled to 41,000, the abuse rate actually dropped. As before, no meaningful relationship could be drawn from the data.

Conclusions

The theory that reducing horse slaughter increases abuse and neglect is clearly not supported by the data. On its face, the data would seem to make the case that slaughter has just the opposite effect on the number of cases of abuse and neglect. There may be some truth to this because the brokers and feedlot operators who deal in slaughter horses are not known for their stewardship of the animals (to be polite). The fact is, however, that all attempts to calculate a relationship between abuse and neglect generate widely disparate values year to year which indicate that there is probably no meaningful relationship at all, or that if it exists it is insignificant compared to other factors.

The reason this is true is undoubtedly multi-fold. As previously mentioned, the number of horses being slaughtered annually represents only 1% of the horse population, so their fate has little effect on the overall situation. Neglect is probably more dependent upon larger factors such as weather (forage and hay availability), and the state of the economy.

Additionally, since the slaughter industry processes only horses that are in good flesh, and generally under twelve years of age and since blind horses and horses that cannot support their weight on all four legs are banned from transport, it would seem that the horses being removed from the population through slaughter are not the ones being abused and probably not the ones at highest risk of abuse or neglect.

Finally, a market place is not an "open loop" system by nature. That is, the supply of a commodity does not remain unrelated to its demand. If there is a demand for horses of a certain type (e.g. "loose horses"), then the market will provide them. For a commodity whose supply is fundamentally unlimited, supply would be expected to follow demand and not the other way around as the "unwanted horse" theory proposes.

In short, the theory that horse slaughter has a beneficial effect on the rate of abuse and neglect is clearly disproved by the facts. For reputable institutions to continue to depend on this theory as a justification for supporting horse slaughter is at best unjustified and irresponsible.


John Holland is an industrial consultant in the field of intelligent automation and knowledge engineering. He is the author of three books with his most recent work being "Designing Autonomous Mobile Robots; Inside the Mind of an Intelligent Machine". He also holds numerous patents in robotics, fiber optics, and radio telemetry.

Mr. Holland is an advocate for horse welfare and humane treatment. In 2005 he received the annual "Heart and Soul" award from United Animal Nations for his volunteer work against horse slaughter. He lives with his wife Sheilah and their 10 horses in the mountains of Southwest Virginia.

References

1 Letter from Representatives Bob Goodlatte and Charles Stenholm to Colleagues, June 18, 2004.

2 United States Department of Agriculture statistics www.fas.usda.gov/ustrade/USTExFatus.asp?QI=

3 Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Study, David W. Freeman Oklahoma Horse Industry Trends, Historic Estimates of Horse Numbers in US and OK. http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2087/CR-3987web.pdf

4 United States Department of Agriculture statistics www.nass.usda.gov:8080/QuickStats/PullData_US Illinois Department of Agriculture statistics



"From my earliest memories, I have loved horses with a longing beyond words." ~ Robert Vavra