Opinion: Why the Slaughter Transport Bill Is Not Enough (and Ten Steps Toward Healing the Ideology Split)
Horse carcasses hang in the cooler at Nature Valley Farms in Saskatchewan. Photo from the No Country for Horses documentary produced by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.The House Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday favorably passed proposed legislation to ban the slaughter of American horses for human consumption overseas, as well as the export of American horses to other countries for slaughter. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) introduced the bill, H.R. 6598, known as the Conyers-Burton Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008.
This bill is still a long way from passing into law. It still must be passed by a majority vote of the Representatives, and the Senate must do the same.
The legislation is being opposed by the AVMA, AQHA, and AAEP. These organizations have dug in their heels on the issue of slaughter, or (more precisely) government intervention on the slaughter of animals for meat. I truly don't believe that anyone in those organizations wants to defend the stuffing of dozens of horses into double-decker trailers for long, hot journeys to Mexican slaughterhouses, but politics is forcing them into just that.
This issue continues to split the horse world the same way that abortion is the hot-button issue in the larger political scene. I think we should look at that issue as a model of how derisive an issue can be and work for solutions that prevent further splits and animosity in the horse world.
One thing I know is true: A workable solution will probably never come from a regulation crafted by legislators and lawyers in Washington. But Washington could force the horse industry into a new era of self-awareness and responsibility.
To better understand horse slaughter as a hot-button issue, keep your eye on abortion debates and on the somewhat related issue of puppy mills. Watch how the government is handling both those issues (or not handling them).
Some solutions I support or propose:
1. If the AQHA is against slaughter, it should discourage its members from breeding. Declare a moritorium for one year, say 2010. Close the book on new foal registrations temporarily. Educate owners and breeders that this is for the good of the breed and the US horse market. Supporting both slaughter as a disposal method and breeding as a means to set new registration records is not in the best interest of horse welfare.
2. If the AVMA and AAEP are against slaughter, they should begin massive owner education programs to discourage breeding, particularly of sub-standard mares. Vet clinics should also offer a period during their natural slow seasons twice each year to offer discounted euthanasia and castration services. Vets make money on breeding and foaling, so a simple equation is that more horses owned by fewer clients are good for a clinic's bottom line. A shift in emphasis needs to made to wellness care and preventive medicine for existing horses rather than creating more horses. Vets should begin to offer decision-making seminars or ethical counseling for mare owners. If clients can't pay their bills, should they be breeding more horses?
3. If the humane and welfare organizations are against slaughter, they should work on massive owner education programs to discourage owning a stallion and they should work with the AVMA and AAEP to offer discounted castrations for cash-strapped clients the same way they offered spay/neuter services for dogs and cats.
4. Breed organizations should follow the model used in Europe so that only approved stallions breed mares. Saying that a stud is (for instance) a registered Paint is no guarantee that the stud is a quality animal worthy of passing on its genes. Likewise, the sale of stud colt weanlings and yearlings should be discouraged. Castrate them first.
5. If the US government wants to regulate horse affairs, it can look to taxation of breeding stock. If you want to breed your mare, perhaps a fee needs to be paid that will support some of the many thousands of unwanted horses. Breeding a mare should be a privilege. The government might also look at a moratorium or higher tax on imported horses, particularly mares and stallions, while there is a glut of unwanted horses here. At the same time, ownership of affordable pleasure (non-breeding) horses could be a tax credit, linked to open land preservation.
6. Find an alternative to the bottom rung auctions. The "meat buyers" should keep a database of the horses they acquire and who owned and bred them. At the very least, we should know breed, sex, and age. Make that information public. If 50 percent of slaughter-bound horses are a certain breed, wouldn't that information have be a call to action for a breed registry to reduce new registrations and discourage breeding until over-production stabilizes?
7. The USTA and Jockey Club need to keep track of ex-racehorses. Owners who abandon their horses and do not provide for their retirement should be embarrassed. If an owner stands in a winner's circle accepting a check while last year's campaigner stands in an auction pen, the public should know. If the high bidder at Keeneland sent 50 horses to slaughter last year, it should be known. The racing/betting fan base should know MUCH more about how owners dispose of or provide for their retired stock. Syndicates and partnerships should have a policy about what they do with non-racing stock that is part of their offering. Those who do (and who stick to it) should get publicity for it.
8. Retirement farms and rescue centers should not differentiate between past winners and "just horses". Encouraging donations or adoptions only because a horse has an impressive show or race record is a slippery slope. A horse that has won for its owner should never end up in a retirement or rescue farm, unless the horse arrives with a big donation check. Prospective adopters should not be interested in a horse only because it was a winner.
9. Horse publications should report more objectively on the issues of slaughter and over-breeding and end their cash-cow stallion issues, effective in 2009. Many are not serving their readers by presenting balanced reporting; some are not reporting on this issue at all. They should also discontinue their "bringing up baby" issues that encourage the creation of more cute foals. People who say they are against slaughter need to pressure publishers into more pro-active roles in educating mare and stallion owners about responsible breeding. If a publication persists in encouraging breeding, readers can cancel subscriptions. Cancel event, farm services and other non-breeding ads. Write letters to the editor. Write another one. These steps will get their attention. (Note: I know that Horse Illustrated has already discontinued its breeding edition for this reason; hopefully other publications have as well.) Editors should be advocates for the reader's information needs. A publication that is dependent on stallion ads for revenue needs to balance that reality.
10. Throughout the industry: Create a culture of public information about horse breeders and stallion get. We need more "where are they now" information but also statistics on how breeders of show and race horses dispose of their lower quality weanlings and yearlings and two-year-olds. Report on the number of show and race horses imported into the US each year. Create a culture of peer pressure among horse owners. Give more prizes at shows to horses who are born and bred in the USA and who were rescued, retrained from racing or rehabilitated. Monitor dog and cat breed/show issues and learn from them (and their mistakes). Encourage veterinary research programs and product development that will help injured or older horses rather than funding more research aimed at getting more mares in foal or increasing fertility of past-peak stallions.
And then, encourage everyone you know to get involved in horses or financially adopt a needy horse at a rescue farm. Encourage the press to publicize the work that is being done to help horses, on both sides of the slaughter fence. Re-invent horse ownership as something fun and meaningful to do in life. Become an ambassador for horses.
11. Tear down the fence and let's all go for a ride. Together.
If you like this post, you will also like these three favorite posts recommended by The Jurga Report:
A link to the excellent Retraining of Racehorses video;
The No Country for a Horse documentary;
Admitting There's a "YOU" in Fugly.
A link to the excellent Retraining of Racehorses video;
The No Country for a Horse documentary;
Admitting There's a "YOU" in Fugly.
© 2008 by Fran Jurga, The Jurga Report: Horse Health Headlines and Equisearch.com. All rights reserved.
http://special.equisearch.com/blog/horsehealth/
This post originally appeared on The Jurga Report on September 24, 2008.
To email this post to a friend (or yourself), click on the envelope icon in the tool bar below or copy and paste the address from the browser's window.
To leave a comment or contact Fran Jurga, click on the “comments” word link in the tool bar below.
http://special.equisearch.com/blog/horsehealth/
This post originally appeared on The Jurga Report on September 24, 2008.
To email this post to a friend (or yourself), click on the envelope icon in the tool bar below or copy and paste the address from the browser's window.
To leave a comment or contact Fran Jurga, click on the “comments” word link in the tool bar below.
Labels: horse slaughter, Unwanted Horses
posted by Fran Jurga @ 9/24/2008
22 comments
22 Comments:
!!BRAVO!!!!!
Fantastic! What a world it would be if all of this was put into practice.
Very smart. I'm saving this and will spread it around--for a long time to come....Thank-you. bonmw
Here's something I don't get...do all the horsemeat-eating people in other countries not know that US horses are not raised specifically as food animals and are given drugs and other supplements that aren't approved for use on food animals? Do they not care about eating something that is potentially dangerous for them?
Thanks, all, for reading this way-too-long post.
Dooflotchie: The medication is something I think about a lot and it bothers me, too. Dr. Patty Hogan mentioned that problem at length when she testified before Congress about horse slaughter. (She is anti-slaughter and very eloquent; read the transcript of her day in Congress, if you can.)
FRAN, I HAVE BECOME A HUGE FAN. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU LISTED HERE. LET'S HOPE SOMEDAY SOON OWNER'S, BREEDERS & THE U.S. AS A WHOLE WILL DO BETTER AT KEEPING HORSE'S SAFE & WELL TAKEN CARE OF. WE HAVE COME ALONG WAY IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, BUT THERE'S SO MUCH MORE TO DO & THIS WILL BE A GREAT START.
your post fails the most important reasons why the usa needs a few conveniently located slaughter plants.
1. you grossly overestimate the success of OTB endeavors, when the reality is that a large percentage of existing OTB horses receive substandard care to the point of life time neglect.
2. slaughter plans allow the abusing, neglecting owner an OUT. I.E. the uncared for animal can be sent on on instead of the abuse continuing month after month, year after year.
horse neglect is a geometrically greater problem than any perceived problems with slaughter.
there's also the issue, of course, that the objection, instead of to slaughter, is to method of slaughter and transport. therefore, let's close the slaughter plants. makes perfect sense, not.
Fran, Thank you for the interesting post. I have mixed feelings on slaughter in general (and of animals besides horses), and I found your post thought provoking and worthy of a re-read. I'd like to share it with others.
The commenter "rather rapid" reminded me of the issue of neglect, which could be a whole topic unto itself. I hope the equine community could help to educate the public about the difficulty and proper techniques of equine care. Education is the cure for ignorance. But education cannot cure cruelty. For those individuals I hope that stricter laws and enforcement could do more to combat neglect, for all animals.
Great post, and I especially like your points about a database for breed, sex, etc.
I went to a great horse welfare panel discussion when I worked at Penn Vet and the vets who worked at places like New Holland confirmed that the vast majority of horses being sold to slaughter are 'heavyish' - draft horses and quarter horses were apparently the most popular (given that it's a business of dollars for pounds) and were the bulk of horses getting on those trucks, but it would be great to have the data to back it up.
As a rule OTTBs are not anywhere near the first choice of slaughter buyers in North America (which is not to say it does not happen) and while there's obviously work to be done in that regard, the issue for the AQHA seems to loom much larger -- both for neglect and slaughter.
As a former quarter horse owner, I know that the organization seemed to encourage a culture of backyard and other ill-advised breeding (I can't say from personal experience whether that is still the case, but it was back then) and the fact that the horses born as a result happen to fit the bill perfectly for slaughter buyers seems a little too neat. I like the idea of a moratorium on breeding for a time.
An excellent and thoughtful post. You offer up some prudent ideas however the bottom line continually reads: Education and Ownership Responsibility.
Taxation on breeding a mare? Sounds good to me - I'm all for taxing anybody but me. However, in states where the equine industry is suffering and the number of foals are decreasing, i.e., Texas, that could be doom.
I agree, HR 6598 is not enough and will probably go nowhere fast. But perhaps its a start and at least some notable individuals, Josephine Abercrombie, et. al., have publicly announced that horse slaughter needs to end swiftly. Signed, sealed, and delivered to Congress.
Perhaps I need to clarify some points in this post, since it stirred TBs and pleasure horses into the same pot, and they have many separate but critical issues.
I hope people can tell the difference!
I hate to read the Fugly blog, but I make myself do it once a week. We all should. Of course it is in-your-face ranting but it keeps the subject open, like an infected wound.
Banning slaughter is a good idea thought of by many good hearted people but...wow this is gonna sound really bad...we need some population control, I'm sure you guys have seen Animal Cops where the people can't afford their horses and so they leave them so starve and die painfully.It's really awful :[
And I think if we ban slaughter that will only increase, with the economy the way it is now some people will just not be able to afford it anymore and just leave their horses because they can't send them to slaughter and I know many people will say "Well they can sell them".Yes well if the population doesn't have a choice but to grow then there aren't going to be many people who will want to buy horses because chances are they will already have mreo than they need. I ride horses and they are my life and I would NEVER send one of my horses to slaughter, or animal for that matter but for SOME people it needs to be an option. It's like humans, if we ban abortion and find a cure for all these dieseases then there will be SO MANY people that we will have to cut down all the trees to house all of us which depleats at the food chain and then eventually leading to all processed food or starvation in mass amounts. Sorry if I sound grim but that;s just my opinion. :]
There are some really good comments here. The issue is really what about the horses already here? I was at a big auction this past weekend and really really really good horses were going dirt cheap when they should have been bringing really good prices. I am talking some high dollar horses going for $200. I view slaughter as a necessary evil. Those who are against slaughter need to step up and fork the money out for those horses that are left to suffer because they are not heading to the plants. They need to get a hold of their congressman who support this bill and ask them to take in these horses. If they believe in this bill then they sure as hell need to step up and show support in EVERY form. I have seen the results of this anti slaughter ban and it is only going to get worse. So if you support it, I suggest you open up your wallet, your barn doors, and start supporting those horses who need it. You sure as hell are not going to tell the Amish and Mennonites to change their ways. They provide the majority of the draft and grade horses at auction. At leas in the Midwest states such as Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York and Illinois.
Wow, Fran
This is one of the best thought out blogs on this I have read. Most will just beat the drum for how bad it is to slaughter and not give any grass roots solutions to the ACTUAL problem. Slaughter is a solution to a problem we have created and you mention the root of most of those.
As the owner of Molly the pony, it should be obvious that I do not chose putting down a horse as a first solution. As the founder of the foundation that takes care of retired horses, ditto. HOWEVER, as "i eat red meat" said, the problem is here and now and until those solutions can be put into full use, HUMANE slaughter needs to be a viable option.
One poster mentioned they would never send their horse to auction. What if you die? Are they provided for? What if a horse owner goes bankrupt and can't even feed his family? I shudder to think what might happen to my animals should my husband and I die or become disabled, especially my old guys. Yet I would rather they be slaughtered than neglected. The thing that REALLY needs to be addressed is the humane treatment of any animal right up to the point of its death, no matter by what means that death comes. And horses now enduring awful transport to far distances just to be slaughtered, in my opinion, is worse than a short distance and getting it over with. And at least the plants here had some regulation.
I lived in SE Asia and if a horse went down and was drug free, it was dinner to many of the poor folk living around the track. I was offered and could not eat it. But that is about a cultural idea. Dead meat is dead meat. It makes no difference to the horse (or any animal) whether it gets eaten, burned or buried once it is dead. I hate the idea of eating "Bambi" but try to stop deer hunting! But I support a hunter who eats his hunt, rather than one who does it just for a rack of antlers.
The main thing is that those things you proposed MUST be done anyway. I admit in my younger days, although a staunch supporter of dog/cat spay/neuter, I foolishly allowed my mare to be bred. I had her til death at 34, and her son I still have. The point, though, is that I was not AWARE of how irresponsible that was and how many unwanted horses there were. I would no longer do that because I know the scene now. I GUARANTEE you it is easy to want to support a slaughter ban, because most of us don't want to see any horse go to that fate, but hard to deal with the fallout of ever increasing unwanted animals now.
Enough. I don't want to be on the other side of the fence from anyone on this, but there are practical points, reality points, and "feel good" points to the whole issue. Many horse people I have spoken to are afraid to express their opinion and I found 95% aligned with what I have said but they don't want to oppose the slaughter ban either. Any solution MUST include taking into account and providing solutions for the current scene while working towards an ideal scene. And that hasn't happened yet.
I hope it does and will work toward it. Your blogs are awesome Fran.
I find it hard to comprehend why the blame for the current problems with the horse industry falls exclusively on breeders. Ten years ago, there were probably as many breeders in the US as there are today, yet the prices were relatively stable. Granted, those prices varied with the location and type of horse, but things were fairly predictable. It seems to me that the real disruption began when large numbers of PMU horses and mustangs began to flood the lower price market, with the emphasis being put on the 'rescue' factor. All of a sudden, people in the market for a new horse were made to feel guilty if they didn't 'adopt' one of the unfortunate critters....that inevitably led into the 'breeders are bad' mentality (mind you, no one seems to blame the PMU breeders or BLM's out-of-control mustang program). The same people who promoted placing of the formerly 'unwanted' horses also pushed for the 'no slaughter' regulations, and here we are with a glut of horses, and not enough homes. Before you point the finger at responsible breeders who foot the bills for their own operations and are now on the ropes, maybe you should consider the effects of the knee-jerk reactions of anti-slaughter/rescue/adoption proponents who are guilting people into filling their pens and emptying their bank accounts to provide homes for a lot of mediocre or chronically unusable animals that unfortunately really should have gone to slaughter. I truly don't see where it's really fair to a crippled, blind, mentally unstable or poor quality animal to prolong its life just for the warm, fuzzy feeling it gives the person who gives it a home. I have a small breeding operation - my horses are healthy, well-fed, cared for and cared about, and I really resent the 'holier-than-thou' attitude of some of the 'one-horse-wonders' out there who paint all breeders with a broad and ugly brush. I am custodian to 18 horses, without handouts and doing 99% of the work myself - how many of you touchy-feely types can make that claim?
Postscript to my above post : Ms. Jurga.....I also can't see any attempt on your part to promote 'healing the ideaology split' with your ten steps. Taxing mare owners and licensing stallions, as opposed to giving tax credits to the single-horse owner....sounds pretty danged one-sided and inflexible to me.....you don't want to find common ground, you just want those who don't feel as you do to 'come to their senses' and agree with you.
Hello, Anonymous,
Do you mean that people should be taxed for only having one horse? Sorry, I don't understand?
Please accept my highest praise if each and every foal from your breeding operation finds a good home and you know that they are all healthy and well cared for. That is the mark of an excellent breeding program.
If you believe that I was attacking responsible breeders in my points, you obviously read my suggestions very defensively. We need responsible breeders (like you, presumably) who breed horses because they know they are saleable and people want those horses.
We do not need accidental breedings or people breeding unsound, unfit mares to produce a cash product.
As far as chastising the people who are taking in these substandard unwanted adoptee horses, I applaud them for doing so as long as they are campaigning to end the practice of irresponsible breeding.
How long have you been breeding horses? How many foals have you produced and where are they now? Do you sell stud colts and mares and encourage your buyers to breed more?
Just curious.
fran
Ms. Jurga,
Hmmm....so it took my criticism of your 'ten steps' to get a response from you? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just presume that you are too busy to check your blog responses every day.
In any case, I have raised foals for more than thirty years, on and off....some years I haven't had one, others as many as six. No, I can't guarantee that after they leave here their entire lifetime will be all sunshine and roses - though I make every effort to 'vet' the initial buyers when I sell a baby to make sure that they'll be experienced and savvy people with appropriate facilities. I can no more control subsequent sales than can most rescues or any other seller......however, I've tracked down horses I raised on occasion and managed to get them back when they had fallen into a bad situation. Unfortunately, that can't always be the case. If you sold a horse tomorrow, you would have no more control than I do over the future of that animal, so be realistic about that, please. On the other hand, you are telling me that you applaud the people who adopt PMU horses or mustangs as long as they discourage 'irresponsible breeding'? PMU farms keep cranking out the foals, making money on the mares in while marketing their byproducts under the guise of 'rescue'.....aren't the adopters just enabling further overbreeding by buying (forgive me - 'adopting'[for a fee]) their babies? Do those adopters then insist that the PMU farms stop breeding? They'd (PMU farmers) get a laugh out of those demands, I'm sure. Does the BLM practice the same animal husbandry practices that you expect of private breeders? You would probably argue that these are 'wild' horses that shouldn't be managed in the manner of domestic herds - sure suits BLM - hands off until it's time for the gather.....however, if that's your stand, then mustangs also shouldn't be available for 'adoption' for the purpose of domesticating them - they stop being 'wild' horses the moment they carry a halter, in my opinion. Since mustangs are actually feral horses descended from those brought in by the explorers, and later from turned-out work and remount horses, they should either be managed properly or treated like wildlife.....I don't think it should go both ways. Of course, that's not PC, but then, neither am I.
BTW, it was your suggestion that riding horse owners would get a tax credit....with your plan, the breeders would PAY tax. FYI, we already do in our state......
I believe my last comment was either deleted or may have posted prematurely. Sorry!
Mr/Ms Anonymous missed the spirit of my post, which was to attempt to give and take on both sides of the slaughter debate's fence.
Many people want to see the fence taken done, others want to build it higher. Still others want to reinforce it with barbed wire or even land mines.
The purpose of my post was to suggest healing, not enter into a debate that reinforces the fence.
What a shame your previous post didn't show up....granted, your most recent one was equally remarkable for its lack of substance.
Ms. Jurga, you refuse to address the issues I brought up and instead imply that I am fundamentally wrong if I feel the anti-slaughter, pro-rescue movement is the real culprit in the current horse industry fiasco.....I say that those who promoted the measures that have resulted in the depressed market and glut of lower-quality horses
need to take off their white-knight suits and accept the blame for their share of the problem.
Oh....coincidentally, I do know how to build a fence, and I've added a couple of locks to keep people from dumping unwanted horses in my pastures....nuff said...
This post has been removed by the author.
anonymous,
I always wonder why "responsible" breeders always get so offended when people start discussing BYB's and how to deal with irresponsible breeders? Kind of reminds me a sulky teenager who's just been caught doing something they know they shouldn't.
I personally have no issues with responsible breeders. And I didn't read anything in this particular post that placed the blame for this situation on responsible breeders either. There is nothing wrong with someone breeding quality horses that are well cared for and placed in appropriate homes.
After all if you look at the economics of raising horses, as a responsible breeder you would stand to do better if the number of foals produced nationally were reduced. Simple supply and demand.
If 100 people go to a horse sale and there are 500 horses for sale, the average selling price will be low. But if there were only 75 horses at that sale, the average price would be much higher.
Whatever side of the slaughter debate we are on, the issue is going to be resovled a lot sooner if we start to look for solutions that are on middle ground instead of just screaming our opinions back and forth
Post a Comment
<< Home