Euthanasia Day: California Non-Profit Helps Horseowners Avoid Slaughter

A few weeks ago I wrote an impassioned blog post calling for reform in the options that horse owners have when choosing to sell or put down an unwanted horse. Among my ideas was that I suggested that AAEP member veterinarians work out a way to subsidize euthanasia on certain days to make it more affordable for owners.

Imagine my surprise today when the Fugly Horse of the Day blog spotlighted a California equine rescue group that is full to the gills with needy horses...and still answering way to many calls from owners with the rote, "Sorry, we're full..." message, knowing that the horse may end up at an auction and then be shipped to a Mexican slaughterhouse.

NorCal Equine Rescue in Oroville is offering euthanasia clinics; the first will be held on December 17th. Financially-strapped horse owners can have their horses euthanized for $25, only about 10% the cost that a veterinarian normally charges. The balance of the fee is to be paid by donations...and with a little publicity from the Fugly Blog, the donations have begun.

Click here to read how the group has planned out the euthanasia clinc, and what the circumstances are in northern California. I don't think they would mind if others copied their idea, but let's give them credit for this one. It is sad to think that it is even necessary, but this option should spare a good number of horses the trauma of the auction and a long long truck ride to a tragic death.

If you can, please donate to the euthanasia initiative. There's a PayPal link ("Donate" button) on the site to make it easy for you.

Magna Tracks Adopt Formal Policy: No Transport to Slaughter or Auction From Our Racetracks

(received via press release)

Magna Entertainment Corporation ("MEC") announced today that it has recently formally adopted a company-wide policy promoting the humane treatment of racehorses. Under the policy, any trainer or owner stabling at an MEC facility who directly or indirectly participates in the transport of a horse from an MEC facility to either a slaughterhouse or an auction house engaged in selling horses for slaughter will be prohibited from having stalls at any MEC facility. The policy also applies to any actions related to the transport of a horse from an MEC facility where the ultimate intended result is the horse's slaughter.

Ron Charles, Chief Operating Officer of MEC and President of Santa Anita Park, commented: "Consistent with the long-standing vision of Frank Stronach and management at our racetracks, the policy signifies the Company's strong intent to deal only with those trainers and owners who have the welfare of racehorses as their primary concern."

Frank Stronach, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MEC commented, "The goal of the policy is to forewarn industry participants who participate in the slaughter of racehorses that they are not welcome at any of our facilities across the country. I hope other racetrack owners formally adopt similar policies".

MEC is North America's largest owner and operator of horse racetracks. Among the tracks owned in the USA by MEC are Golden Gate and Santa Anita in California, Gulfstream in Florida, Laurel Park and Pimlico in Maryland, Lone Star Park in Texas, The Meadows in Pennsylvania, Portland Meadows in Oregon, Remington Park in Oklahoma, and Thistledown in Ohio.

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.

© 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.

Anti-Slaughter Advocates Will March on Washington Next Month

Get ready for a news blitz. The group Americans Against Horse Slaughter has organized a two-day invasion of Washington DC by anti-slaughter advocates and celebrities from across the country. Parties and protests and grassroots lobbying sessions are planned for March 4-5, 2008.

Learn more about the events planned for Washington.

On the federal level, the U.S. Senate's Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee voted 15-7 last month in favor of sending the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act to be considered before the full Senate. In 2006, the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 263-146, but was not acted upon by the Senate before it adjourned for the year.

The slaughter issue has not been in the press much in the past few weeks, but it continues to trouble many horse owners, who realize the complexity of the issue.

As with so many political issues, the two sides continue to turn up the volume of rhetoric whenever the media offers a mouthpiece, but either no one is coming forward on a national level with ideas for a workable middle ground...or that microphone is not turned up.

South Dakota Legislature Considers Funding for Horse Slaughter Plant to be Built

According to several web sites, a bill has been introduced in the South Dakota legislature that would make a state-funded loan of up to $1 million available to anyone wishing to construct and open a horse slaughtering facility in the state. Introduced by multiple members of the South Dakota State Senate and House Agriculture Committees, S.B. 170 is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Agriculture Committee at 10 a.m. on Tuesday morning.

Not much information is available as to whether this is a meat-processing project or not.

You can check with the South Dakota state government's web site, here, which has a page on the bill.

Stay tuned.

American Horse Council Supports Tightening of Slaughter Horse Regulations

(received via press release today and posted for your information)

WASHINGTON, DC - The American Horse Council (AHC) has told the U.S. Department of Agriculture that it supports the Department’'s proposal to amend the regulations governing the commercial transportation of equines for slaughter. The proposed changes would extend the regulatory protections provided by the Commercial Transport of Equines to Slaughter Act to horses bound for slaughter, but delivered first to an assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard.

The AHC was one of the principal organizations involved in passing the Commercial Transport of Horses to Slaughter Act. The AHC was also involved in working with USDA in drafting the rules adopted under the Act to regulate the transport of equines for slaughter in December, 2001,” said Jay Hickey, AHC President.

The rules presently require that shippers certify the fitness of these horses to travel and provide them with water, food, and rest for 6 hours prior to being loaded for transport. Horses cannot be shipped for more than 28 hours without being off-loaded for 6 hours and given the chance to rest, eat and drink. While in transport, horses must be checked at least every 6 hours to ensure that no horse has fallen or is in distress. Trucks used to transport horses to processing facilities must allow for the segregation of stallions and aggressive horses from others.

The rules prohibited the use of double-deck trailers to commercially transport horses to slaughter after December 7, 2006.

The current rules apply only to the transport of horses directly to the slaughter plant, not to any initial shipment to an assembly point, feedlot or stockyard during the shipping process,” said Hickey. “USDA felt that this was a gap in the protections of the Act and the AHC agrees.”

The proposed change would broaden the protections to include all horses “being transferred to a slaughter facility, including an assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard.” In effect, the proposed changes would move-up the point at which the regulations apply in the process of moving horses from sales, farms, and other points to a slaughter facility. This would provide horses delivered to intermediate points en route to slaughter with the same protections regarding food, water, hour limits, and the prohibition on double-decker trucks as those horses moved directly to plants.

The rules do not –and would not under the proposed changes – apply to the transport of horses for other purposes, such as breeding, racing, show or recreation.

AQHA Urges Opposition to Congressional Anti-Slaughter Bill: Veterinarians for Equine Welfare Take Aim at AVMA Anti-Slaughter Position

Ready...aim...publicize!

The escalating mood in the country as Congress's anti-slaughter bill nears voting time is fascinating to watch. The bill has been amended to include strict restrictions on transporting horses intended for slaughter.

The American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA), which has taken a bold pro-slaughter position on the issue, sent an "action alert" email to its membership, urging them to contact their Congressional representatives. The email suggests the transport restrictions may affect the freedom on AQHA members to move their own horses.

From the AQHA email:

"TRANSPORTING ANY HORSE FOR ANY ACTIVITY MAY BE AT RISK!

"This bill may have far-reaching effects on our members and their ability to buy and sell horses. Members may sell horses unaware of the buyer's intent with the animal and to where it may be transported, possibly resulting in legal ramifications for the seller. This legislation is vague and ambiguous and its passage could have far-reaching consequences. We urge you to contact the senators of your state and voice your opposition to this legislation and the funding to enact it...."

Meanwhile, not to be outdone, the organization Veterinarians for Equine Welfare (VEW), lead by animal behaviorist Nicholas Dodman, visited Washington and issued a press release criticizing the American Veterinary Medical Association's affiliation with meat-packing interest.

To a mere observer of the whole slaughter issue, I think the larger point here is that these organizations (including VEW) are establishing policy that is based on politics, and little is being done to present the pros and cons of the issue to their members or to the public. It's a lot like a national organization or labor union (think: police chiefs, teachers, miners, doctors) endorsing a candidate for US President: did they poll their members? No. A committee evaluated the candidates' position statements and decided which one would support that organization's political agenda. That's how politics works, but it is unsettling to see this at work in the horse world, where horse ownership is such an emotional issue and where people voluntarily become members of breed and sport organizations.

Organizations like the AQHA have members all over the country and from all backgrounds; a blanket opposition policy seems unproductive in light of what the largest breed organization could bring to the table in terms of brain power, resources, and influence to affect a compromise or at least an alternative policy.

Like the VEW, I can see through "news" that is reported in national newspapers and web sites that is obviously placed to present an image of America's horse economy being in a state of panic because of over-supply and "unwanted" horses and that these problems would otherwise just go away if slaughter was retarted.

Someone recently told me a rumor that huge factory ships are anchored off the west coast of the USA. They are floating slaughterhouses for horses that cannot be legally slaughtered in California. The entrails are thrown to the sharks, no doubt. No proof that these ships exist, of course.

Likewise, if you wanted to cross the border into Mexico or Canada this fall, you wouldn't be able to get through because the traffic is backed up behind convoys of trucks full of horses headed to slaughter. Just rumors, of course...started by whom?

Is the Congressional bill the answer? Sadly, I think not, because even if it passes, politics will make sure that there is no money to enforce it, or some other political tactic will be employed to hold it up in court.

We don't need more lawsuits, we need a solution, and it starts with educating horse owners of their responsibilities to their horses and discouraging the "recreational" breeding of backyard horses ("The kids could raise a foal! What fun!") and over-breeding of potential race and show horses for (possible) profit that is approaching "puppy mill" status.

I know that veterinarians profit from vanity and spec-profit breeding but I think that educating owners to take better care of the horses they already have might balance things out. Shifting racing and showing rewards to events for mature horses might extend showing and racing careers and increase the value of older horses, too, as would publicity for the usefulness of middle-aged and "senior" horses for recreational use.

What are your ideas for solutions? Please don't tell me you are "pro" or "anti" slaughter. Tell me what can be done to bring the American horse industry back together instead of splitting it apart.

The Week in Review: Anti-Slaughter Gains with Triple Crown as Backdrop

They say that history is defined as when more happens in ten minutes than happpened in the past ten years. Looking at the round-up of news from the anti-slaughter movement, this was an historic week.

Anti-slaughter legislation in Illinois saw the signature of the governor, effectively ending the state's DeKalb horse "processing" plant's chances to continue. Actress Bo Derek targeted Illinois and campaigned in the state in support of the law.

And in Texas, horse slaughter at two plants in the state was dealt double blows by a US Supreme Court decision and the state legislature.

A nationwide ban is still in committee in the US Senate, after passing the House of Representatives this year.

I'm sure that as soon as I post this, I will hear about a gain on the pro-slaughter side.

I ran across a nice blog post on the slaughter issue, positioned on the backdrop of the Triple Crown races. For many people, Street Sense's loss to Curlin in the final strides of the Preakness was a bitter disappointment: no Triple Crown winner again this year. I think this is sad, since it was such an exciting race and Curlin's surge to the wire, after being passed in the stretch by his rival, brought to mind the old days of Affirmed and Alydar, Sunday Silence and Easy Goer. A good rivalry will make people interested in horse racing as much if not more than a superior horse devastating his rivals on three Saturdays.

The blogger who agrees with me is Andrew Cohen, legal analyst for CBS News. He posted his take on the week's event at the track and in the courtroom, on Katie Couric's "Couric and Co." blog. Cohen is a racehorse owner himself and used Couric's blog to advance his own politics, but I think that for horse politics to even show up on a blog like that is evidence of how emotionally-charged this issue is....and that editors in high places agree that This Is News.

People in the horse world who have never blogged or written letters to the editor, or posted on forums are doing so. We are finding out that some very interesting people either own racehorses, love racing, or just care passionately about horses. And, we are finding out that these interesting, influential people are on both sides of the issue.

I find the parallels between horse slaughter and gun control compelling. The opponents have emotion and an all-star lineup of celebrities on their side. The proponents have hard-to-deny arguments in defense of individual or state's rights on their side. It's hard for me to understand, but I do recognize that some of us can be as emotionally attached to weapons as we are to horses.

But unlike gun control, both sides of the horse slaughter debate profess to love horses, although it's a pretty tough "love" or a selective "love" in some cases. If people really do love horses, we should be able to work this out, for their sake.