Shelley Sawhook, Dec. 10, 2004
On the 7th of December 2004, the /Thoroughbred Times/ [1] reports that the
American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) held a session at its annual
convention in Denver on the plight of the unwanted horse. The AAEP also plans on
holding a Summit on the issue on April 19th 2005 on the issue and I thought that
I might give an opposing opinion on the issue for people to think about before
the next meeting.
In the article the /Thoroughbred Times/ quotes Tom Lenz, DVM, MS as saying
“that the slaughter bill, sponsored by Representative John Sweeney (R-NY), does
not address the welfare of the unwanted horses it would keep from slaughter,
limits options for methods of euthanasia, does not address environmental
concerns about disposal of carcasses of horses that die or are euthanized as an
alternative to slaughter, and does not provide for an enforcement plan.” Nat
Messer IV, DVM, who monitored the session is quoted as saying “too many
unanswered questions exist about the demographics of the estimated 200,000
horses going to slaughter each year. Until data is compiled on the sex, age,
breed, occupation, and circumstances of each horse going to slaughter, a viable
solution cannot be formulated.” Both these men’s statements can be refuted by
simple facts.
First, I take exception of the use of the term “unwanted” horses. These
horses are not unwanted. Most are simply unlucky horses who were in the wrong
place at the wrong time. Generally with owners who were unaware that they needed
to guard their pets from slaughter since the thought of it is so abhorrent to a
public that doesn’t eat horses. Others are the victim of theft and are pawned
off on the equine equivalent of an unregulated pawnshop of horseflesh. Still
others are brought to the slaughter plants through fraud, with kill buyers
posing as rescues, traders and people looking for a horse for their child. The
courts are filled with such cases, with owners seeking restitution for their
murdered pets and companions. These are NOT unwanted horses, they ARE wanted.
The problem is lack of knowledge and simple greed. Lastly, look at the protected
American Mustang, some of them end up at slaughter facilities when some owners
obtain them illegally or when owners sell them at an auction unwittingly. These
animals are supposed to be supported by our tax dollars under the 1971 Wild
Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. As a taxpayer I want each and every one of
them returned to the wild where they belong and where I pay for them to reside.
And with the rising numbers of horses IMPORTED for slaughter from Canada, it
makes you wonder, why we have to import horses if we have so many “unwanted”
horses? The number of horses processed for slaughter equals less than 1% of the
horse population.
Let’s look at their objections carefully one by one. The options for
euthanasia that the bill limits are both controversial methods. First, it bans
the captive bolt gun. Even the USDA notes that the captive bolt gun is a
stunning device and does not euthanize the animal. No vet in the country uses
the bolt gun, so why the fight? Next it limits the use of electrocution. The
AVMA, of whom the AAEP is a subsidiary, lists electrocution as a viable method
for euthanasia. Would you let any vet that says it was going to electrocute
Fluffy or Fido near your animals? Probably not, that is why the AVMA suggested
back in the 70’s that it no longer be used. The method was only listed
originally to prevent municipalities from lawsuits if that was the method they
used for destroying stray dogs and cats. For an organization to add such a
barbaric method to their supposed list of “humane” methods, just shows where
their affiliations lie.
As for the environmental concerns, the EPA has never heard from the AAEP or
AVMA on the issue of disposal. However, they are supposing that every horse that
currently goes to slaughter would be euthanized. This is an outrageous
contention since most horses that go to slaughter are young, healthy animals
that could be rehabilitated or trained for a different career. There might be
environmental concerns if all 60,000 horses were disposed of in the same place
at the same time, but again this is less than 1% of the horse population and in
an average year we lose more than that to normal age/health related deaths.
Since surveys show us that approximately 90% of horses that go to slaughter are
from states outside of where the slaughter plants are located, there is no
danger of them all ending up in the same place at the same time for their bodies
to be disposed of. Also, no humane organization is opposed to the rendering of
horses and this leaves little or no body to dispose of.
As to the welfare of horses saved from slaughter, their owners would sell
most to new owners. Some would be euthanized humanely and others would go to
rescues. Currently the states have humane laws that cover rescues to protect the
horses from improper care. The AAEP has issued guidelines for rescues and many
are following those guidelines at this time. The bill does address enforcement
and even allows for fines to go toward the care of horses seized under this law.
In addition, with the reduction in resources needed to oversee the slaughter
facilities, the USDA would see a substantial decrease in its budget. This would
decrease the burden on taxpayers.
As for the questions on the demographics, the state of Texas (where 2 of the
nation’s slaughter plants are located) requires reports filed with the county.
Those reports are available for anyone under the Freedom of Information Act, so
demographics are readily available. The largest percentages of horses
slaughtered are listed as being Quarter Horses. Not difficult for anyone to find
that information at the Tarrant County or Kauffman County courthouses or at one
of the many websites that has previously requested that information.
Lastly, I have no idea where the number 200,000 is coming from. Last year
approximately 72,000 horses were slaughtered for human consumption in the US and
exported for slaughter in Canada and Mexico. That number was down from the 1990
high of 415,000. With a drop of nearly 343,000 in ten years, even if that number
were correct the industry could obviously support the numbers quoted. It has
before and will again.
The AAEP has some serious questions to answer on this issue. It will be
interesting to see how an organization that should be concerned with the humane
treatment of horses can justify their position. At the very least it appears, at
least to me, that they are buying into the propaganda of the slaughter industry
and at worst they are what they claim they are not, pro-slaughter.
* [1] Thoroughbred Times: AAEP says anti-slaughter bills are flawed 12-07-2004.
www.thoroughbredtimes.com.
