Views to a kill: The US horse slaughter debate [link]
Lewis Whitehall | January 23, 2008
The United States is home to 9.2 million horses. Each year, according to the Humane Society, an estimated 950,000 of them die by means other than slaughter.
The fate of the 100,000 or so animals that, until last year, formed the backbone of the country's horse slaughter industry, is a hotly debated political issue in the US.
The fight over the controversial industry has been carried to the highest levels of the American justice system and no clear winner has yet emerged.
There are two lobbies, the so-called pro-slaughter and anti-slaughter groups.
While parties may argue over whether such terms rightly apply to them, American groups involved in the debate either support a federal law change to ban the slaughter trade, or they oppose it.
Both groups are well organised.
It seems there is little or no middle ground in a gloves-off fight that will ultimately be won or lost in the US legislature.
The horse slaughter trade in the US was processing between 90,000 and 100,000 horses annually, almost all for export for human consumption. Three plants were in operation, in Texas and Illinois.
While anti-slaughter groups have been fighting for a federal ban on the trade, the industry was brought to a halt last year by legal action in both states which saw judges deciding that existing state laws were sufficient to shut down the plants.
Shut they did. And despite legal challenges, they have remained shut.
It was, however, a pyrrhic victory for the anti-slaughter lobby.
The number of horses now being trucked across borders for slaughter has increased dramatically. Parties agree the horses meet a worse fate at Mexican plants than they would have suffered at the regulated US plants.
The anti-slaughter lobby acknowledges that the situation is unsatisfactory, but argues it is the staunch opposition and so-called stonewalling of pro-slaughter groups which has prevented the passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.
The Act would not only ban slaughter across the nation, but prohibit the export of horses for the same purpose.
Supporters of the slaughter industry argue that it provides a humane way to dispose of unwanted horses. It is a fate more humane than a slow death through starvation or neglect, which supporters argue would be the case if the push for a federal ban on slaughter is successful.
Animal shelters, they suggest, are already overburdened and the nation simply cannot accommodate 100,000 unwanted horses a year. Some horse owners cannot even afford the cost of euthanizing a horse and properly disposing of its body.
Horse slaughter is undeniably an emotive issue, and both sides are more than happy to use strong language in getting its message across. Phrases such as "undeniable national horror", "tsunami of horse abuse" and "animal welfare disaster" come not from the anti-slaughter lobbyists trying to appeal to people's emotions, but from pro-slaughter interests discussing the possible end of slaughter in the United States.
Anti-slaughter groups have already won the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans, with polls usually indicating two out of every three US citizens oppose the trade.
One of the highest profile groups opposing the passage of the anti-slaughter legislation is the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), which has 86,000 members.
The AVMA says that while some unwanted horses are rehomed, "there are not enough homes for all of these horses". "If there were," it says, "there would be no market for slaughter horses".
"Although there are numerous equine rescue facilities throughout the United States, these facilities simply do not have enough room or resources to accommodate the additional 90,000 to 100,000 horses every year that will no longer be able to be slaughtered in US plants."
Further, the AVMA argues that the total number of unwanted horses is substantially greater than the number going to slaughter.
The AVMA argues it is not a "pro-slaughter" organisation. "Ideally, there would be caring homes for all horses, and there would be no market for the equine slaughter industry.
"The AVMA opposes the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act because it is, quite simply, a bad bill that ignores the real issue—what do we do with all of these unwanted horses? Eliminating an option for their disposition does nothing to solve the problem, it only adds to it."
Opponents of slaughter, the AVMA argues, are spending "millions and millions of dollars lobbying for this bill, and minimal to no money to care for the horses or develop programmes to provide for their housing and care".
"If even some of that money was diverted to providing adequate care and housing for unwanted horses, many of these horses could escape the fate these organizations are pushing so hard to eliminate."
The key to solving the problem doesn't lie in eliminating slaughter, the AVMA argues, it lies in responsible horse ownership.
In one of the few areas where there seems to be some agreement between the groups, the AVMA argues: "If everyone who purchased or bred a horse accepted the responsibility of caring for that horse throughout its entire life, or finding another person to do so if the original owner is unwilling or unable, there would be no more unwanted horses."
It argues that eliminating slaughter will not reduce the number of unwanted horses in the US. "What will happen to these horses when there is no more room at the rescue facilities and no one to buy them?"
A number of groups have declared their opposition to the anti-slaughter bill. Many belong to an organisation called the Horse Welfare Coalition. Slaughter opponents suggest the name is misleading and, with some justification, say the slaughter industry is a key driver of the group.
Similarly, a wide range of animal advocacy organisations have voiced opposition to the slaughter industry, and are determinedly pushing to get the federal ban in place.
Anti-slaughter groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, openly attack the AVMA's stance, accusing the association of spreading misinformation and arguing that the veterinary group is putting industry interests first and not the welfare of horses.
The cause of anti-slaughter campaigners has not been helped by drought conditions that have pushed hay prices in some parts of the United States to record levels.
Horses at auctions are reportedly in poorer condition than usual and horse shelters report increasing numbers animals in need of rehoming.
Supporters of the slaughter industry cite both factors as being a consequence of the slaughter ban, although there is scant evidence to suggest that anything other than high feed prices and drought are to blame at this stage.
A large number of newspapers have been carrying accounts of such auctions, and the fate awaiting these horses. Anti-slaughter advocate John Holland has described the coverage as coming from "third-rate reporters" pumping out "completely fabricated stories like the ones about horses being abandoned around the country."
Supporters of a permanent ban on slaughter argue that the majority of Americans do not want their horses ending up on overseas dinner plates.
They say that the captive-bolt guns used to kill the horses at slaughter plants are inhumane, and that the whole process of carting the animals to slaughterhouses is in itself traumatic to the animals, many of which are used to human contact, having been treated throughout life more as companion animals than livestock.
The horses travel much further to slaughter than the likes of beef cattle, often in trucks designed for cattle, not horses. Given that most were not raised for slaughter, some may still be tainted by antibiotics or other drugs, such as the anti-inflammatory painkiller, phenylbutazone, commonly known as "bute".
Anti-slaughter groups argue that the "unwanted horse" is a creation of the pro-slaughter lobby. They also dispute that 90,000 to 100,000 horses are "sent to slaughter" annually.
What the figures actually indicate, they argue, is that so called "kill buyers"—those attending auctions to buy horses for slaughter—are simply prepared to pay more than anyone else attending that particular auction.
Holland argues that the horses at greatest risk of neglect are unlikely to be destined for slaughter plants in any case.
"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."
The United States Department Agriculture reports that 92% of horses taken to the slaughter plants were in good condition.
Holland continues: "The theory that reducing horse slaughter increases abuse and neglect is clearly not supported by the data."
While the numbers going to slaughter appear large, they argue that it is actually only a small percentage (about 1%) of the overall US horse population. Absorbing that number of horses into the general horse population would not be as challenging as slaughter supporters suggest.
Slaughter opponents argue that horses which are aged, frail, dangerous or that simply cannot be rehomed, deserve to be humanely euthanized—not trucked to auctions and on to slaughter plants. Yes, the fate awaiting horses at Mexican slaughter facilities is much worse, but that is because of the opposition being mounted to the passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.
The gloves have been off for much of the battle. Some supporters of the slaughter industry suggest some opponents are trying to push a "vegan agenda".
However, there can be no doubting the credentials of some who support the slaughter ban.
Veterinarians for Equine Welfare (VEW) accuse the AVMA of spreading misinformation.
"I submitted a letter to the editor of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in response to the AVMA's latest 'fact sheet' on horse slaughter but it was rejected," said Dr Nick Dodman, a co-founder of VEW.
"It is a shame to see a professional organisation work so hard to undermine something such as the horse slaughter ban based on speculation and unsubstantiated information.
"As veterinarians we are bound to a code of ethics to prevent animal suffering, not hinder animal protection measures in order to promote economic interests."
Dr Theo Antikas, another co-founder of VEW, said: "It is time to stop the rhetoric and political backhanded tricks that have been blocking passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. We must all work together for positive change that will help end the suffering of tens of thousands of American horses."
Slaughter opponents claim those backing the industry do so in some cases for financial reasons.
The slaughter industry is profitable and lucrative, they argue, and at least some of the support for the industry stems from this, not through a genuine belief that the slaughter industry provides a humane solution to the problem of unwanted horses.
Horse meat is in demand in Europe and prices are high.
The wider issue of horse breeding is not far removed from the debate, with both lobby groups taking positions which do not seem too far apart.
In 1999, the US horse population stood at 5.32 million. There has been an increase of almost 4 million in the last eight years.
Is the US becoming a nation of geriatric horses, or have breeding practices played a part in the substantial increase in numbers?
The AVMA says: "Breeders, horse organisations, and horse owners should all be aware of the possible fates of unwanted horses, and should make a conscious effort to educate themselves and the public about responsible horse ownership."
Some anti-slaughter groups have made no secret of their intentions to target the policies of the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA), which recently publicised its five-millionth registration.
Anne Russek, the director of media relations for the Virginia Equine Council, described the AQHA as one of the main suppliers to and supporters of the horse slaughter industry and one of the main opponents to the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.
"While the AQHA argues it opposes the [Act] because there is a so-called 'unwanted horse problem' it is the main producer of foals in the US—with tens of thousands of new registrations every year—and is actively promoting the mass breeding of more foals.
"This irresponsible breeding programme rewards the bottom feeders of the horse industry such as killer buyers and assorted auction racketeers."
The future is uncertain.
While the slaughter industry in the US is effectively at a standstill because of enforcement of state laws, the industry is unlikely to be resurrected anywhere in the US while the prospect of a federal ban on the trade is still very real.
The passage of a law ending the slaughter trade relies not only on getting the numbers politically, but questions also remain over where it will fit on the legislative calendar.
In the meantime, the campaign on both sides of the slaughter divide continues apace.
And there are no prizes for coming second.
XP—Long read, but good balanced coverage from outside of these United States.
Jan 23, 2008
Jan 15, 2008
Horse slaughter now a far worse fate than before.
U.S. horse slaughter exports to Mexico increase 312% [link]
R. SCOTT NOLEN | Jan 15, 2008
Despite American plant closures, slaughter continues across the border
Since all three U.S. horse slaughter operations were ordered closed last year, the number of horses exported to Mexico for slaughter has exploded. As of Dec. 20, 2007, 44,475 horses had been shipped to Mexico for processing for human consumption compared with 10,783 shipped at the same time in 2006—a 312 percent increase.
Especially troubling is the treatment of the horses once they cross the border into Mexico. In October, the Humane Society of the United States released a video showing the brutal stabbing death of a fully conscious horse at a Mexican slaughter facility. "It is time for this carnage to end," said Nancy Perry, HSUS vice president of government affairs, who called on Congress to close the border to horse slaughter exports.
In addition, American horse exports to Mexico for purposes other than slaughter, such as for breeding or recreation, have nearly doubled in the same period. This increase is raising concerns that many of these horses are actually being sent to slaughter but shipped under false pretenses to circumvent U.S. transport regulations governing the animals' welfare.
Despite the shuttering of the three U.S. horse slaughter plants, exporting horses for processing remains legal. Horse enthusiasts, however, have for years been pushing for a federal ban on what they say is an inhumane and un-American practice. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, currently pending in Congress, would prevent any horse slaughter facility from operating in the United States as well as prohibit the shipment of horses to other countries for processing.
The AVMA and other AHSPA opponents contend that the assault of the anti-horse-slaughter coalition, led by HSUS, on the federally regulated horse slaughter industry has, in fact, led to the current welfare crisis. Unwanted horses fared much better when they were transported under government supervision to U.S. regulated facilities and humanely euthanized, they say. (Cavel International Inc., the foreign-owned operator of the Illinois slaughter plant, is appealing the state ban to the U.S. Supreme Court.)
"The reality is, proponents of this legislation have done nothing to address the real issue here, and, in fact, by seeking to ban horse slaughter, they have made things significantly worse," said Dr. Mark Lutschaunig, director of the AVMA Governmental Relations Division. Opponents of the federal ban say its supporters should instead focus their energies on addressing what to do with the some 100,000 horses relinquished by their owners each year to slaughter.
The end for horses sent to one of the U.S. slaughter plants was anything but humane, according to the HSUS. The regulations meant to protect them were inadequate as the horses suffered from a lack of food and water on crowded trailers, and the euthanasia was often mishandled, the organization claims. Rather than being slaughtered, HSUS says, unwanted horses can be placed with a rescue or retirement facility or, when no other options are available, humanely euthanized.
While there is little about horse slaughter on which the AVMA and HSUS agree, they're of the same mind when it comes to the serious welfare problem posed by the skyrocketing American horse slaughter exports to Mexico.
Given the high volume of American horses slaughtered annually when the U.S. processors were open, a spike in U.S. equine exports to Mexico was expected once they closed. According to the Department of Agriculture, a total of 138,206 American horses were processed in 2006. Of those, 102,260 were sent to U.S. facilities, 24,866 to Canadian facilities, and 11,080 to Mexican facilities.
But a fourfold increase in U.S. equine exports to Mexico, fueled by a growing surplus of unwanted horses at home and a high demand for horse meat abroad, still came as a surprise to some. "These are just remarkable numbers and not something I think any of us would have anticipated, even with the closing of the plants," said Dr. Timothy Cordes, senior staff veterinarian for equine programs with the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
The USDA estimates that 35,000 horses were sent to Canada for slaughter in 2007—about a 41 percent increase from the year before. Horse slaughter opponents are trying to shut down the industry there with a Canadian version of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.
The Mexican horse slaughter industry is more worrisome than its Canadian counterpart, especially since more is known about the Canadian industry, which adheres to transport and euthanasia regulations similar to those in the United States. "One of the most daunting things about all of this is, once a horse crosses the border, it is no longer a U.S. horse. It becomes a Mexican horse. It loses its identity, it loses its citizenship, it loses its ownership," Dr. Cordes said.
When contacted by JAVMA News for information about their country's horse slaughter policies, Mexican officials referred to regulations stating the animals must be humanely euthanized in sanitary conditions.
Trying to get an idea of how the Mexican horse slaughter industry operates, a delegation from the American Association Equine Practitioners arranged a tour of several Mexican slaughter facilities in November 2007. But, according to Dr. Tom Lenz, chair of AAEP welfare committee, Mexican plant owners canceled the trip after recent negative media stories. The visit is being rescheduled and will most likely happen in early 2008. "The big question that's not been answered yet is how those (American) horses are handled in Mexican processing plants and euthanized," Dr. Lenz said.
Late last year, Dr. Lenz and other AAEP officials met with Mexican equine veterinarians to discuss the plants. Although he isn't positive, Dr. Lenz believes most American horses are going to facilities owned by European companies where horses are euthanized either by a captive bolt or gunshot, the same as in the United States and as required by Mexican law. Exact numbers aren't known but there may be as many as four such operations in Mexico, he said.
They might also be going to facilities that are in the process of becoming certified to export horse meat to Europe. "We're not 100 percent sure which type of plant American horses are going to, but it's one or the other," he said.
There are two other types of slaughter facilities in Mexico: municipal plants that process horses for local consumption and so-called clandestine facilities. "They're not regulated plants," Dr. Lenz said. "They're local butcher shops ... and that's where the greatest concern about how the horses are being handled and euthanized is." He believes it's this sort of operation featured in the HSUS video.
Another question is, if the slaughter ban were enacted, what would happen to all those horses whose owners no longer want them or can afford to keep them? Ban supporters say the nation's equine rescue and retirement facilities can absorb many of them. The HSUS points to groups such as the New York Racing Association that are raising money and working toward solutions for unwanted horses. Additionally, owners can opt for humane euthanasia by a veterinarian.
Ban opponents respond that this isn't realistic. Without the humane slaughter alternative, countless horses would be neglected or abandoned because there won't be enough homes for them. The AAEP estimates an additional 2,700 rescue facilities would be needed in the first year of the ban to care for the thousands of surplus horses. The costs of euthanasia and environmentally safe carcass disposal can run as much as $400 and may be more than some owners are willing to pay. Making matters worse is a hay shortage, brought on by droughts, which is making it more expensive to feed horses.
Then there's the strength of the international horse meat market, partly a result of outbreaks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in European cattle. The price of horse flesh in Belgium is at an all-time high, according to Dr. Cordes. Considering the demand for horse meat and a surplus of unwanted horses in America, even under a federal transport prohibition preventing horses from crossing into Canada and Mexico for slaughter would be a challenge.
"It's really a matter of supply and demand. These horses are going to go across the border, one way or another," Dr. Cordes said, adding that the $5 million allocated in the horse slaughter prevention legislation for enforcement purposes isn't adequate to secure the borders. "It doesn't even come close," he said.
XP—American workers out of jobs, when they could be assuring that surplus American horses come to a quick, humane end on American soil.
R. SCOTT NOLEN | Jan 15, 2008
Despite American plant closures, slaughter continues across the border
Since all three U.S. horse slaughter operations were ordered closed last year, the number of horses exported to Mexico for slaughter has exploded. As of Dec. 20, 2007, 44,475 horses had been shipped to Mexico for processing for human consumption compared with 10,783 shipped at the same time in 2006—a 312 percent increase.
Especially troubling is the treatment of the horses once they cross the border into Mexico. In October, the Humane Society of the United States released a video showing the brutal stabbing death of a fully conscious horse at a Mexican slaughter facility. "It is time for this carnage to end," said Nancy Perry, HSUS vice president of government affairs, who called on Congress to close the border to horse slaughter exports.
In addition, American horse exports to Mexico for purposes other than slaughter, such as for breeding or recreation, have nearly doubled in the same period. This increase is raising concerns that many of these horses are actually being sent to slaughter but shipped under false pretenses to circumvent U.S. transport regulations governing the animals' welfare.
Despite the shuttering of the three U.S. horse slaughter plants, exporting horses for processing remains legal. Horse enthusiasts, however, have for years been pushing for a federal ban on what they say is an inhumane and un-American practice. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, currently pending in Congress, would prevent any horse slaughter facility from operating in the United States as well as prohibit the shipment of horses to other countries for processing.
The AVMA and other AHSPA opponents contend that the assault of the anti-horse-slaughter coalition, led by HSUS, on the federally regulated horse slaughter industry has, in fact, led to the current welfare crisis. Unwanted horses fared much better when they were transported under government supervision to U.S. regulated facilities and humanely euthanized, they say. (Cavel International Inc., the foreign-owned operator of the Illinois slaughter plant, is appealing the state ban to the U.S. Supreme Court.)
"The reality is, proponents of this legislation have done nothing to address the real issue here, and, in fact, by seeking to ban horse slaughter, they have made things significantly worse," said Dr. Mark Lutschaunig, director of the AVMA Governmental Relations Division. Opponents of the federal ban say its supporters should instead focus their energies on addressing what to do with the some 100,000 horses relinquished by their owners each year to slaughter.
The end for horses sent to one of the U.S. slaughter plants was anything but humane, according to the HSUS. The regulations meant to protect them were inadequate as the horses suffered from a lack of food and water on crowded trailers, and the euthanasia was often mishandled, the organization claims. Rather than being slaughtered, HSUS says, unwanted horses can be placed with a rescue or retirement facility or, when no other options are available, humanely euthanized.
While there is little about horse slaughter on which the AVMA and HSUS agree, they're of the same mind when it comes to the serious welfare problem posed by the skyrocketing American horse slaughter exports to Mexico.
Given the high volume of American horses slaughtered annually when the U.S. processors were open, a spike in U.S. equine exports to Mexico was expected once they closed. According to the Department of Agriculture, a total of 138,206 American horses were processed in 2006. Of those, 102,260 were sent to U.S. facilities, 24,866 to Canadian facilities, and 11,080 to Mexican facilities.
But a fourfold increase in U.S. equine exports to Mexico, fueled by a growing surplus of unwanted horses at home and a high demand for horse meat abroad, still came as a surprise to some. "These are just remarkable numbers and not something I think any of us would have anticipated, even with the closing of the plants," said Dr. Timothy Cordes, senior staff veterinarian for equine programs with the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
The USDA estimates that 35,000 horses were sent to Canada for slaughter in 2007—about a 41 percent increase from the year before. Horse slaughter opponents are trying to shut down the industry there with a Canadian version of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.
The Mexican horse slaughter industry is more worrisome than its Canadian counterpart, especially since more is known about the Canadian industry, which adheres to transport and euthanasia regulations similar to those in the United States. "One of the most daunting things about all of this is, once a horse crosses the border, it is no longer a U.S. horse. It becomes a Mexican horse. It loses its identity, it loses its citizenship, it loses its ownership," Dr. Cordes said.
When contacted by JAVMA News for information about their country's horse slaughter policies, Mexican officials referred to regulations stating the animals must be humanely euthanized in sanitary conditions.
Trying to get an idea of how the Mexican horse slaughter industry operates, a delegation from the American Association Equine Practitioners arranged a tour of several Mexican slaughter facilities in November 2007. But, according to Dr. Tom Lenz, chair of AAEP welfare committee, Mexican plant owners canceled the trip after recent negative media stories. The visit is being rescheduled and will most likely happen in early 2008. "The big question that's not been answered yet is how those (American) horses are handled in Mexican processing plants and euthanized," Dr. Lenz said.
Late last year, Dr. Lenz and other AAEP officials met with Mexican equine veterinarians to discuss the plants. Although he isn't positive, Dr. Lenz believes most American horses are going to facilities owned by European companies where horses are euthanized either by a captive bolt or gunshot, the same as in the United States and as required by Mexican law. Exact numbers aren't known but there may be as many as four such operations in Mexico, he said.
They might also be going to facilities that are in the process of becoming certified to export horse meat to Europe. "We're not 100 percent sure which type of plant American horses are going to, but it's one or the other," he said.
There are two other types of slaughter facilities in Mexico: municipal plants that process horses for local consumption and so-called clandestine facilities. "They're not regulated plants," Dr. Lenz said. "They're local butcher shops ... and that's where the greatest concern about how the horses are being handled and euthanized is." He believes it's this sort of operation featured in the HSUS video.
Another question is, if the slaughter ban were enacted, what would happen to all those horses whose owners no longer want them or can afford to keep them? Ban supporters say the nation's equine rescue and retirement facilities can absorb many of them. The HSUS points to groups such as the New York Racing Association that are raising money and working toward solutions for unwanted horses. Additionally, owners can opt for humane euthanasia by a veterinarian.
Ban opponents respond that this isn't realistic. Without the humane slaughter alternative, countless horses would be neglected or abandoned because there won't be enough homes for them. The AAEP estimates an additional 2,700 rescue facilities would be needed in the first year of the ban to care for the thousands of surplus horses. The costs of euthanasia and environmentally safe carcass disposal can run as much as $400 and may be more than some owners are willing to pay. Making matters worse is a hay shortage, brought on by droughts, which is making it more expensive to feed horses.
Then there's the strength of the international horse meat market, partly a result of outbreaks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in European cattle. The price of horse flesh in Belgium is at an all-time high, according to Dr. Cordes. Considering the demand for horse meat and a surplus of unwanted horses in America, even under a federal transport prohibition preventing horses from crossing into Canada and Mexico for slaughter would be a challenge.
"It's really a matter of supply and demand. These horses are going to go across the border, one way or another," Dr. Cordes said, adding that the $5 million allocated in the horse slaughter prevention legislation for enforcement purposes isn't adequate to secure the borders. "It doesn't even come close," he said.
XP—American workers out of jobs, when they could be assuring that surplus American horses come to a quick, humane end on American soil.
Jan 11, 2008
Horses not worth "meat" price shot after not selling at auction.
Horses Spared in U.S. Face Death Across the Border [link]
By CATRIN EINHORN | January 11, 2008
SHIPSHEWANA, Ind. — At the weekly horse auction here, No. 274, a handsome chestnut-colored draft horse, looked at the surrounding men while being led into a small ring. Two of the men looked back, calculating how much meat the animal’s carcass would yield, and started bidding accordingly.
There is no pretense about what happens to the horses sold in this area of the auction, known as the kill pen. Just a few months ago, many of them would have met their end at a slaughterhouse in neighboring Illinois. Now almost all will be shipped to Canada and killed there.
Amid pressure from animal rights groups, horse slaughter virtually ended in the United States last year, as courts upheld state laws banning it in Texas and Illinois, home to the nation’s last three horse slaughterhouses.
But there have been unintended consequences, including more grueling travel for tens of thousands of horses now being sent to slaughter in Canada and Mexico, where, animal advocates say, they sometimes face more gruesome deaths.
Horses that wind up as No. 274 did last month here in Shipshewana, near the Michigan state line, may once have carried children on their backs, pulled wagons on a farm, even been to the races. Now they are lame, aged, fractious or unwanted for any of various other reasons. Some are young, never broken in to begin with.
The slaughterhouse closings themselves may have added to the population of the unwanted. In some parts of the country, auctioneers say, the closings have contributed to a drop in the price of horses at the low end of the market, and the added distance in the shipping of horses bound for slaughter, combined with higher fuel costs, means that some small or thin horses are no longer worth the fuel it takes to transport them.
Add to that a rise in hay and grain prices, as well as a general economic slowdown.
“First time in my life I’ve seen livestock that has no value,” said Devin Mullet, owner of Kalona Sales Barn in southeastern Iowa.
After his monthly auction in October, Mr. Mullet said, he shot 28 horses that had failed to fetch any bids. Since then, he has monitored horses coming in for sale, turning away those he thinks are worthless—often yearlings and the aged, which tend to yield less meat. (Horse meat for human consumption is shipped to countries including Belgium, France, Italy and Japan.)
But opponents of horse slaughter say its domestic demise is a victory, if an incomplete one, in their fight to protect animals they see as devoted companions.
“It’s a step closer to the long-term goal of banning slaughter in North America,” said Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States. “There are fewer horses slaughtered.”
Indeed, even with the busy export to Canada and Mexico, the Agriculture Department estimates that 105,000 American horses were slaughtered in the three countries in 2007, down from some 138,000 the year before.
For many horses, though, export means hundreds more miles of strenuous transit in large trailers. “It’s difficult for them to keep their balance, they’re often crowded, they have no access to food or water while en route,” said Timothy Cordes, a senior veterinarian with the Agriculture Department.
Of particular concern to advocates is the treatment of the horses once they reach Mexico, to which exports have more than tripled. American protections simply do not apply there, Dr. Cordes said.
The American slaughterhouses killed horses quickly by driving steel pins into their brains, a method the American Veterinary Medical Association considers humane. Workers in some Mexican plants, by contrast, disable them by stabbing them with knives to sever their spinal cords, said Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University.
“My worst nightmare has happened,” Dr. Grandin said. “This is an example of well-intentioned but very bad unintended consequences.”
An official with the Mexican agriculture department said the technique described by Dr. Grandin was illegal in Mexico.
Animal rights groups are pushing for federal legislation that would forbid the sale and transport of horses for human consumption, thereby banning the export market. Bills await action in both houses of Congress.
In the meantime, the debate over horse slaughter continues to divide the equine community, pitting organizations against one another. Many thoroughbred associations support both the domestic slaughter ban and the proposed legislation; the American Quarter Horse Association is against them. The issue is so controversial that the American Horse Council, a national lobbying group for the horse industry, declares itself neutral.
Supporters of the ban say the solution to unwanted horses is to euthanize them—by chemical injection, for example, as with a cat or a dog. “Give the horse some dignity,” said Barbara Geittmann, executive director of the Hooved Animal Humane Society. “It gave you all the ribbons and all the wins.”
But euthanasia and carcass disposal cost upward of $140, according to the American Association of Equine Practitioners, a veterinary group, and there can be environmental issues related to burial.
At the Shipshewana auction, Keith D. Lambright, an owner and auctioneer, said the price of meaty slaughter horses had dropped to an average of about $230, from roughly $330 a year ago. No. 274 sold for $150, and some in the kill pen brought as little as $30, perhaps to be used as zoo meat.
A fuzzy foal and an emaciated old-timer fetched nothing at all. A woman felt sorry for them and, despite high feed prices, paid $40 for the pair and took them home as pets.
XP—I have highlighted information I did not want overlooked, and will continue to do this in articles to follow. My own comments will be here at the end, or otherwise noted.
By CATRIN EINHORN | January 11, 2008
SHIPSHEWANA, Ind. — At the weekly horse auction here, No. 274, a handsome chestnut-colored draft horse, looked at the surrounding men while being led into a small ring. Two of the men looked back, calculating how much meat the animal’s carcass would yield, and started bidding accordingly.
There is no pretense about what happens to the horses sold in this area of the auction, known as the kill pen. Just a few months ago, many of them would have met their end at a slaughterhouse in neighboring Illinois. Now almost all will be shipped to Canada and killed there.
Amid pressure from animal rights groups, horse slaughter virtually ended in the United States last year, as courts upheld state laws banning it in Texas and Illinois, home to the nation’s last three horse slaughterhouses.
But there have been unintended consequences, including more grueling travel for tens of thousands of horses now being sent to slaughter in Canada and Mexico, where, animal advocates say, they sometimes face more gruesome deaths.
Horses that wind up as No. 274 did last month here in Shipshewana, near the Michigan state line, may once have carried children on their backs, pulled wagons on a farm, even been to the races. Now they are lame, aged, fractious or unwanted for any of various other reasons. Some are young, never broken in to begin with.
The slaughterhouse closings themselves may have added to the population of the unwanted. In some parts of the country, auctioneers say, the closings have contributed to a drop in the price of horses at the low end of the market, and the added distance in the shipping of horses bound for slaughter, combined with higher fuel costs, means that some small or thin horses are no longer worth the fuel it takes to transport them.
Add to that a rise in hay and grain prices, as well as a general economic slowdown.
“First time in my life I’ve seen livestock that has no value,” said Devin Mullet, owner of Kalona Sales Barn in southeastern Iowa.
After his monthly auction in October, Mr. Mullet said, he shot 28 horses that had failed to fetch any bids. Since then, he has monitored horses coming in for sale, turning away those he thinks are worthless—often yearlings and the aged, which tend to yield less meat. (Horse meat for human consumption is shipped to countries including Belgium, France, Italy and Japan.)
But opponents of horse slaughter say its domestic demise is a victory, if an incomplete one, in their fight to protect animals they see as devoted companions.
“It’s a step closer to the long-term goal of banning slaughter in North America,” said Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States. “There are fewer horses slaughtered.”
Indeed, even with the busy export to Canada and Mexico, the Agriculture Department estimates that 105,000 American horses were slaughtered in the three countries in 2007, down from some 138,000 the year before.
For many horses, though, export means hundreds more miles of strenuous transit in large trailers. “It’s difficult for them to keep their balance, they’re often crowded, they have no access to food or water while en route,” said Timothy Cordes, a senior veterinarian with the Agriculture Department.
Of particular concern to advocates is the treatment of the horses once they reach Mexico, to which exports have more than tripled. American protections simply do not apply there, Dr. Cordes said.
The American slaughterhouses killed horses quickly by driving steel pins into their brains, a method the American Veterinary Medical Association considers humane. Workers in some Mexican plants, by contrast, disable them by stabbing them with knives to sever their spinal cords, said Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University.
“My worst nightmare has happened,” Dr. Grandin said. “This is an example of well-intentioned but very bad unintended consequences.”
An official with the Mexican agriculture department said the technique described by Dr. Grandin was illegal in Mexico.
Animal rights groups are pushing for federal legislation that would forbid the sale and transport of horses for human consumption, thereby banning the export market. Bills await action in both houses of Congress.
In the meantime, the debate over horse slaughter continues to divide the equine community, pitting organizations against one another. Many thoroughbred associations support both the domestic slaughter ban and the proposed legislation; the American Quarter Horse Association is against them. The issue is so controversial that the American Horse Council, a national lobbying group for the horse industry, declares itself neutral.
Supporters of the ban say the solution to unwanted horses is to euthanize them—by chemical injection, for example, as with a cat or a dog. “Give the horse some dignity,” said Barbara Geittmann, executive director of the Hooved Animal Humane Society. “It gave you all the ribbons and all the wins.”
But euthanasia and carcass disposal cost upward of $140, according to the American Association of Equine Practitioners, a veterinary group, and there can be environmental issues related to burial.
At the Shipshewana auction, Keith D. Lambright, an owner and auctioneer, said the price of meaty slaughter horses had dropped to an average of about $230, from roughly $330 a year ago. No. 274 sold for $150, and some in the kill pen brought as little as $30, perhaps to be used as zoo meat.
A fuzzy foal and an emaciated old-timer fetched nothing at all. A woman felt sorry for them and, despite high feed prices, paid $40 for the pair and took them home as pets.
XP—I have highlighted information I did not want overlooked, and will continue to do this in articles to follow. My own comments will be here at the end, or otherwise noted.
Jan 1, 2008
Horse slaughter: for or against?
As a horse lover, and someone who has owned and ridden horses over half my life, my decision to support horse slaughter was not a simple one to make.
The fact is, the worst case scenarios described before the slaughterhouses in the U.S. were shut down have played out.
Before you try to argue, remember that these horses are often owned—even "rescued"—by lower income families who otherwise would not own horses.
They received one or more free or very inexpensively. Due to one reason or another, they became unable to properly feed and care for them, and cannot afford the high cost of euthanasia. The cost of feed and fuel have skyrocketed, impacting the many costs associated with horse ownership. Now, one cannot even be assured that a healthy horse will fetch $100 at auction, and the fate of an older or injured horse is even more grim.
The articles I post will support my view of the slaughter ban. Yes, this blog is biased.
You are welcome to agree or disagree, and comment accordingly. But, play nice.
The fact is, the worst case scenarios described before the slaughterhouses in the U.S. were shut down have played out.
Without a viable option for handing the surplus,
there is nothing left to do with some
there is nothing left to do with some
unwanted horses but let them die.
Before you try to argue, remember that these horses are often owned—even "rescued"—by lower income families who otherwise would not own horses.
One third of horse owners have an annual
household income of $50,000 or less.
household income of $50,000 or less.
They received one or more free or very inexpensively. Due to one reason or another, they became unable to properly feed and care for them, and cannot afford the high cost of euthanasia. The cost of feed and fuel have skyrocketed, impacting the many costs associated with horse ownership. Now, one cannot even be assured that a healthy horse will fetch $100 at auction, and the fate of an older or injured horse is even more grim.
They are being neglected.
They are being abandoned, turned loose.
So many are being given away in desperation,
rescue organizations are turning them away.
They are being abandoned, turned loose.
So many are being given away in desperation,
rescue organizations are turning them away.
The articles I post will support my view of the slaughter ban. Yes, this blog is biased.
I believe that the ban
has directly caused
the needless suffering,
neglect and starvation of
many American horses.
has directly caused
the needless suffering,
neglect and starvation of
many American horses.
At the expense of lost American jobs, and lost revenue.
Tens of thousands of surplus horses in the domestic population increase the cost of feed and other necessities, and decrease the value of the individual animals.
Tens of thousands of surplus horses in the domestic population increase the cost of feed and other necessities, and decrease the value of the individual animals.
You are welcome to agree or disagree, and comment accordingly. But, play nice.
Many of the articles were found at avma.org
XP—
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
