Horse Abandonment – A Picture Of Consequence
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
One of the take-home messages from the ancient tale of King Midas was “Be careful what you wish for.” Interwoven into this fundamental truth is that every action taken or not has consequences – results, whether the intended kind or the unintended.
A major feature article in the December 21st, 2008 Reno Gazette Journal presented a stark reminder of consequence for the wisdom of Congress and the ability of zealous animal rights advocates to sway public opinion to the point that U.S. slaughter facilities for horses have been driven to extinction. An emaciated horse, pictured in this news account, drew readers to learn more of the horse abandonment situation http://www.rgj.com/article/20081220/NEWS20/81220024 that has been and continues to be repeatedly reported around the country.
Yes, feed prices and tough economic times have been factors in the unfolding circumstances, but if you haven’t been following Congressional actions, which first de-funded inspections for horse meat at slaughter facilities that once existed in the U.S. and now are considering Big-Brother prohibition of “knowingly transporting horses to slaughter” http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/features/horseslaughter-135.shtml – perhaps the picture of the protruding rib cage of the starved horse might be worth clipping and dropping into the mail to our elected leaders. Nevada’s Senator John Ensign might be at the top of the list for these mailings, given his leadership role in pursuing an end to U.S. horse slaughter.
Farm Bureau-Backed Public Study Underway:
In response to a request from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is spearheading a study to quantify impacts of unwanted and abandoned horses. The study will be conducted by the Animal Care division of the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). It will characterize the type, history, ownership, and health status of unwanted horses entering animal control facilities, rescue and retirement facilities, and auction markets. The study will involve between 15-20 animal control and rescue organizations throughout the U.S. as well as a number of auction markets that sell horses on a weekly or monthly basis. It will evaluate between 300-500 horses over a 1-year period and include surveys for owners, sales personnel, and animal control and rescue personnel. The survey data will be statistically analyzed and reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The information will also be disseminated to the equine community in lay journals, website fact sheets, and outreach presentations.
State Legislative Interests Weighing In:
The National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) has approved policy regarding the need for humane slaughterhouses for horses in the U.S. NCSL is a bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of all 50 states, plus U.S. commonwealths and territories.
The Horse Industry Policy urges Congress to:
• oppose legislation that would restrict the market, transport, processing, or export of horses;
• recognize the need for humane horse processing facilities in the U.S.; and
• not interfere with state efforts to establish such facilities.
The resolution was adopted during the business meeting at NCSL’s Fall Forum in Atlanta mid-December, 2008.
At the heart of the drive to prohibit horse slaughter in the United States is the understanding, that because of their domestic connection, horses provide the initial stepping stone in the quest to do away with all animal slaughter facilities entirely.
Because of the disconnect, which urban citizens have with the source of their food suppliers, the outpouring of “public support” generated by anti-slaughter advocates is made possible by dissolving the concepts of consequences for the action taken by getting rid of the slaughter facilities. The pictures of the starving horses, abandoned as an act of last resort, hopefully remind citizens of common-sense to understand that public policy not based on reasonableness has its own set of outcomes.
Mr. Busselman, one of the first rules you learn in journalism is to get your facts straight. First, the slaughter houses were not driven to extinction by Congress. They were shut down by individual state laws in Texas and Illinois. Laws that were asked for by the citizens of the states. Congress had nothing to do with their closure. Second, we are not animal rights activists. Animals will never have rights.
You have offered nothing in your article except to repeat the pro slaughter drivel. Arguments that contradict themselves. If slaughter was the cure for abandonment, why are you writing about abandoned horses? Anyone wishing to send their horse to slaughter can still do so. The same number of horses have been slaughtered this year. If slaughter was the cure, you wouldn't be seeing abandoned horses. So which is the lie. The abandoned horses or that slaughter prevents abandonment?
The NCSL resolution is humorous. Nowhere does it offer a solution to the root cause. Over breeding. The AQHA alone brings over 140,000 foals into the horse population every year and also has the number one breed going to slaughter. Why is everyone to blame but the irresponsible owners that don't care for their horses?
The unintended consequences are that the abuse and irresponsibility are now front and center. The twisted logic and lies of the pro slaughter advocates have been exposed. I don't see any mention of the recent FOIA on the Beltex plant we received from the USDA that we have dubbed, Slaughtergate. If you'd like to read the report and see the KHOU TV news report that aired on the 10p news last week, you can find it here: www.vickitobin.com/id18.html
Reply to this
Vicki,
You can spin 'facts' any way you like, just like the media does, but when congress refused funding for inspectors of horse slaughter facilities, and USDA regs do not allow slaughter without an inspector present, you defacto shut down the slaughter house. Just like you have 5 options for management of 'wild' horses under the wild horse and burro act, but only one of these options is funded; adoption. I submit that the money that it costs the DOI to round up and adopt one horse would pay for a professional to destroy close to 100 head humanely.
Reply to this
Amen, Vicki, and thank you for pointing out the facts that pro-slaughter doesn't want the general public to know.
I find it interesting that the author of this article admits, "At the heart of the drive to prohibit horse slaughter in the United States is the understanding, that because of their domestic connection, horses provide the initial stepping stone in the quest to do away with all animal slaughter facilities entirely." How absurd, but none-the-less a scare tactic that is being perpetuated by pro-slaughter.
Horse slaughter has nothing to do with the slaughter of cows, pigs and chickens which are specifically raised for human consumption in the US; horses are not. Americans do not eat horses, period. We do not eat dogs or cats either, but no one is suggesting we should slaughter the millions of dogs and cats euthanized at animal shelters each year, and export their meat to countries that do eat them. Why are we doing this to our horses ? Read the USDA report via the link on Vicki's website - 900 pages of violations at one horse slaughter plant in the US, for a period of less than one year. Is this the fate our horses should suffer because of the greed of a few individuals ? Any person with even an ounce of compassion would say no.
BTW, I had steak for dinner last night.
Reply to this
Uhh... on the starving horses... how do you explain all the starving cattle that are happening? ( http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-10-24-1395803013_x.htm )
Is is just possible that drought conditions combined with this economy are the cause of all these animal problems and not the closure of a few stupid plants?
As far as I know, there has been no slowdown in beef slaughter and there's certainly still a market for it. So maybe, just maybe you have some of your "facts" wrong there too.
At least I give you credit for being honest. You admit that you'd rather horses be subjected to INHUMAN transport and INHUMANE conditions at slaughter plants than risk that someone might not be able to tell the difference between a cow and a horse.
The proof that the beef industry knows that slaughter transport is inhumane is in the fact that they NEVER transport horses intended for future use under the same conditions. You know they get the snot beaten out of them and that many die.
If the lack of slaughter (that is still available) is the reason the horses are starving... then please explain to my how a farm ends up with 100 dead cows stacked up and 240 others near death on just one farm? Or is that what the beef industry considers good animal management too?
Reply to this
Since the 80's we have been closing all of the equine butchershops in the once grand ole USA.If you write an article you need to get your facTs straight.Congress has nothing to do with any of the hogwash written in your bogus,biased PRO-SLAUGHTER article.2 years ago we closed down the 2 illegally run Texas slaughterhouses.Recently in the past year we closed down Cavel in Illinois.The vast majority of all americans are against Equine Slaughter, well over 90 %.Are you aware of the overabundance of corn, grains and wheat grown in the USA, the farmers are paid well to pretend we do not have enough earth grown grains. MMM. where do you think the surplus goes, tis EXPORTED overseas.Farmers/Ranchers that are pro-slaughter are the guilty parties upping the anty on the high cost of grains and hay, shavings,etc. Have you noticed how many skinny cattle are out there? Probably not.Take off your blinders and do proper research before writing an article that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.Personally We have rescued well over 4700 equids from slaughter since the 80's. How many equids have you rescued? I recommend highly you take a basic writing course, get your substantiated facts and all ducks in a row, you need stats, proof before you can even dream of attempting to write a story, YES , Just a story not an article. How ashamed you must be.UNTIL ALL AMERICAN EQUINES ARE SAFE FROM SLAUGHTER. JUST SAY NO TO THE KILLING OF ALL EQUIDS.
Reply to this
Vicki said it all. The AQHA registers a 140,000 foals a year and 120,000 horses go to slaughter each year. DUH!!! And now the AQHA is trying to come up with more ways to encourage more breeding from their members. Now tell me does that really make sense? It does if you are the AQHA and need the funds. They don't care about the cruel and inhumane treatment of the horses that end up going to slaughter. They only care about funds for their association. They need to teach breeders to breed fewer and better horses and teach owner responsibility.
Reply to this
Ladies, the first rule of irrigation is "you have to have a place for the water to go". At this time there is no place for surplus horses in the US. The unwanted horse homes are full. The people who can afford to care for a horse have one. With the current economy, there is less money available and the price of feed is high. More and more people are unable to care for their horses. They cannot sell the horse because no-one is willing to buy. The local rescue/shelter is full. They cannot afford, or they shrink from euthanasia. There is not sufficient resources or infrastructure to care for the 100,000+ surplus horses in the US. This anti-horse-slaughter is the long on emotion and arrogance, snd short on any concept of reality.
The reality is that horses are edible along with dogs, cats, rats, snakes and a host of other critters. I find it incredibly arrogant that we're going to dictate to the rest of the world what they eat.
Another reality that is ignored is the "Electric Horseman option". Many people who have exhausted other options and can not bear to euthanize their horse, turn them loose on the federal lands. This is often a death sentence. The horse dies of thirst or starvation if it doesn't get run over first.
I'm sorry folks but your pet theory doesn't work in the real world. Perhaps you should use your head for thinking rather than a parking lot for hats and ear-rings.
Reply to this
HSUS and those that have banned slaughter are a sham. The whole thing was about publicity and the votes were from city people who had never had to care for a horse and who think they look pretty out in a field. Those of us who have them in our barns have seen the value of a good riding horse go from 2000 to 500 with the end of slaughter, and auction horses now go for 10.00 to 20.00 each. You cannot give colts away.
HSUS says they want to prevent cruelty: so US horse slaughter, that had the possibility if being more humane with proper enforcement, was shut down- and horses are now shipped for slaughter, usually to Mexico. The slaughter in Mexico is extremely inhumane- the horses is repeatedly stabbed through the neck until the spinal cord is managed to be severed. There is no pretense at trying to give the horse a quick death. Now, with neglect and abandonment on the rise (I had 2 in my own barn this last week, that the owner could no longer afford to keep) - they point to the fact that many horses are being shipped to Mexico, so slaughter has not gone down much. Hmmmm, I thought the point was to prevent cruelty- seems instead that they have promoted extremely cruel and inhumane deaths for horses, after an extremely long and cruel transport across the US.
But they got those plants out of the US, and they got their publicity, and they got control over the horse
Reply to this
Again, the greed of the pro-slaughter side rears its ugly head. It is a shame that you keep spewing the same ole propaganda about the unwanted horses. Do your research and realize that the American public is smart enough to do their research on the subject and the reality is that such a small percentage of horses are sent to slaughter that it is a number easily absorbed into the population. The AQHA or the ranchers don't want us to know that though. They need their easy disposal of their throw aways. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for your animals and quit using cruelty to feed your families. The American public sees through you and your agenda and so does our new administration. When the national ban passes and you have to actually care and feed your animals what will you do then? I guess the truth will get you in the end, won't it?
Reply to this
What truth are you referring to? The truth is that a horse is a large mammal that requires considerable input to maintain. So you are saying that it is better for a person to starve as long as they feed their horse. This is typical mentality of the 'save the planet' religionists who feel that they have higher ideals and standards that need to be imposed on us lowly folks. Can you tell me in the US Constitution where it gives you the authority to tell a group of people that like horse meat that they can no longer eat horse meat. Would you please tell the French that it is wrong for them to eat horse meat, and make them pass a law to that effect. What do you like to eat? When will the government attack that?
The truth is that you have no interest in the health or well being of horses, you only desire to use your religion to control others. It must be a powerful feeling to have that kind of influence. In the meantime, horses are being abandoned every day, left to thirst or starve to death because there is no market to take care of the excess.
Reply to this
amen! i totally agree with you.we really need the slaughterhouses.
Reply to this
Okay, it's not the greed, we're trying to help them too. We don't want to see a bunch of horses starve, but when there is no money coming in for selling the other ones you kind of run out of money. We also need the money in our own economy that Mexico and Canada are getting out of selling our meat. We sell it to them for less than they get. We need the money!! Duh! We could be getting that revenue. And i'm not being inhumane either. I love horses and plan to specialize in equine medicine, but not everyone has the money to care for these animals. When they're abandoned because we can't feed them it isn't fair that other people should have to pay to take care of a horse they didn't want. We need these slaughterhouses to help with this problem.
We can make our slaughterhouses humane to, way more humane than the ones in mexico. We slaughter cattle in masses everyday and the slaughterhouses are humane enough for everyone not to gripe, the ones for horses could be too.
Reffering to the USA Today article "Homeless oon the Range" the author herself says "Horses bound for auction, even if that means eventual slaughter, are better cared for than those that have little economic value. Auction prices have plummeted since the slaughter ban went into effect. And so, too often, has the level of care afforded many unwanted horses." If you really want to help, open them back up and make the company treat the animal better before it is slaughtered. These things we can do to help, but it's gotten worse since we've shut them down because now they are all getting abandoned. Why give out money to put them to sleep when you get more money out of them to help with the other ones by putting them to slaughter. I mean your killing them anyways why not get something out of them for your others.
And Kelli, about TAKING RESPONSIBILITY, some people have kids to feed so if they can't even feed their kids or put gas in the car how in the world are they supposed to feed their horse. I love my horses and i don't know about your priorities but my kids and my job would come first. They are MY RESPONSIBILITY. So if we had these slaughterhouses they could help there too. Which again helps with the economy!
And also Julie has a great point these other countries eat all kinds of different stuff, just because we don't, doesn't mean we should say anything about it. Some countries don't eat beef. They WORSHIP cows, you don't see them saying it's inhumane and throwing a fit about us eating it. "live and let live" is what i say. And bring the slaughterhouses back. We can make them humane, just like the cattle slaughterhouses.
Reply to this