The anti-slaughter lobby
would win even greater support if it
openly engaged in a debate over what
to do with America's unwanted
horses, argues Alex Brown.
"Of course I am against horse
slaughter, but what will we do with
all the unwanted horses?"
This is a common response when
asking American horsemen their
opinion on horse slaughter.
The practice is abhorrent and
largely unregulated (Google "horse
slaughter" for evidence of the
inhumane practice). But is horse
slaughter really necessary?
Shaping the slaughter
debate
The pro-slaughter camp has done a
good job of alleging a need within
the North American horse industry to
dispose of "unwanted" horses. They
claim they are fulfilling that need
by slaughtering horses in numbers
ranging from a high of 377,078 in
1989 to a low of 77,713 in 2002,
according to United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
figures. To this camp, every horse
slaughtered is "unwanted" by
definition.
A faction of the anti-slaughter camp
refuses to acknowledge the existence
of any unwanted horses. They propose
that the notion of unwanted horses
is simply a convenient myth
developed by the pro-slaughter
lobby.
Unwanted horses do exist and to
argue otherwise creates a problem.
However small the actual number, by
arguing that they don't exist
removes the opportunity for a
dialogue to seek out humane
solutions for those horses who are
no longer wanted.
Denying that unwanted horses
exist also eliminates the
opportunity for a debate over the
number of unwanted horses that would
need to be accommodated following a
ban on the slaughter of American
horses.
Most horse owners believe there
are "unwanted" horses and are
concerned with what we should do
with them. They will believe the
side that acknowledges that unwanted
horses exist - and that is all too
often the pro-slaughter side.
A dialogue involving the
anti-slaughter side over unwanted
horses is likely to appeal to
horsemen, who will then be more
willing to actively seek and support
solutions for unwanted horses under
a slaughter ban, and to speak out
against horse slaughter.
This report sets out to establish
that horse slaughter is a
demand-driven business, rather than
a business developed to simply
perform a disposal service for the
horse industry.
It argues that there is a
population of unwanted horses, but
that this population is much lower
than the number of horses
slaughtered. Finally, it identifies
current solutions and proposes
additional solutions for the
unwanted horse problem - solutions
which can rid the horse industry of
the perception of the need to send
our horses to slaughter, which is
not humane euthanasia.
The demand is for young
and healthy horses
If slaughter were necessary and
simply served as a disposal service
for the horse industry in the US,
then we would expect to see a
relatively constant number of the
horse population slaughtered each
year.
In order to meet the
demand for the
foreign horse meat
industry, kill
buyers, and horse
dealers who act
either as kill
buyers or work
directly with kill
buyers, have become
quite adept in
acquiring horses
from unsuspecting
sellers who assume
their horses are
going to good homes.
|
|
But when we look at the data we see
the number of American horses
slaughtered fell drastically during
the 1990s while the horse population
grew at 3% to 5% a year. There are
also large fluctuations on a
year-to-year basis in the number of
horses slaughtered. Between 1993 and
1994 slaughter decreased by 92,000
horses, more than the total number
slaughtered in 2002. Fluctuating
numbers of slaughtered horses does
not support the notion that these
horses are simply unwanted horses.
On top of the lack of consistent
number of horses slaughtered, there
is also no corresponding negative
change in the number of abuse cases
(stemming from neglect and
starvation) reported as the
slaughter numbers fluctuate. One
would expect to see an increase in
the number of abuse cases with a
decrease in the number horses
slaughtered and vice versa if horses
slaughtered are simply unwanted.
And while Cavel - a horse
slaughter plant in Illinois which
closed in 2007 - was rebuilding from
its fire in 2002-2004 there were
about 51,000 fewer horses
slaughtered but the number of abuse
cases in Illinois quit rising and
actually fell.
In the face of these numbers, the
argument that slaughter provides a
necessary outlet solely for unwanted
horses in the market begins to fall
flat.
We would also expect the
slaughter numbers to increase in
hard economic times or in times of
drought, but instead the lowest
number of horses slaughtered came
during the last recession of
2001-2002.
Fluctuating slaughter numbers,
the lack of negative correlation
with abuse case numbers and the lack
of increase in slaughter numbers
during our toughest economic times
is the first indication that the
slaughter business is actually a
demand-driven business to satisfy
foreign cuisines rather than simply
a supply-side service to remove
surplus horses from the industry.
Fluctuating slaughter numbers are
driven by demand for horsemeat. This
in turn has been impacted by the
fluctuating availability and
skeptical consumer confidence in
beef and other meat products,
particularly during outbreaks of
mad-cow disease in countries that
were once relied upon as a source of
European Union and Asian beef
imports.
It also suggests that horses sent
to slaughter were not necessarily at
risk of abuse in the first place.
Our second indication that
slaughter is demand-driven is the
means of horses getting to
slaughter.
Most horses sent to slaughter
from North America are sent to
slaughter houses via kill buyers who
hold contracts with the slaughter
houses to supply a certain number of
horses.
This is evident at horse sales
when kill buyers are willing to
overpay for a horse in order to
fulfill a contract, or sell back a
horse to a rescue, for a markup, for
horses that are not needed for the
current contract.
Thus the number of horses
slaughtered is not simply the number
of unwanted horses made available
for slaughter (data collected from
the USDA under the Freedom of
Information Act suggests only 1% of
horses slaughtered are walk-ins) but
the number demanded by the slaughter
house contracts.
Where do the slaughtered
horses come from?
Given significant fluctuations in
the numbers of horses slaughtered
each year, and the lack of negative
correlation with the number of abuse
cases, it is hard to make the
argument that the horses slaughtered
are simply horses that are unwanted
and prone to abuse.
In fact, the population of
unwanted horses must be smaller than
the number of horses slaughtered in
the year where the least number of
North American horses were slaughter
(2002). The figures do not support
an alternative explanation.
In order to meet the demand for
the foreign horse meat industry,
kill buyers, and horse dealers who
act either as kill buyers or work
directly with kill buyers, have
become quite adept in acquiring
horses from unsuspecting sellers who
assume their horses are going to
good homes.
Horses that are quite useful end
up at kill auctions and would have a
home if the right customers were in
attendance and aware of the
situation.
Many horses are sold over the
internet on sites such as Craigslist
as "free to a good home". Dealers
and kill buyers are more aware of
these avenues to buy horses cheaply
than are potential customers - the
genuine "good homes" who only make
few and infrequent purchases.
Essentially, many horses sold
with good intentions end up in the
slaughter pipeline in order to
satisfy the demand for horse meat in
Europe and Asia.
I have personally witnessed sound
and young horses going through a
kill auction. Their options are to
be purchased privately (it does
happen), rescued, or purchased by
the kill buyers who are the largest
and most important clients of the
kill auction.
Not only are horses
surreptitiously purchased from
unsuspecting sellers to enter the
slaughter pipeline, but horses are
also stolen and sold for slaughter.
In the seven years after
California's bill outlawing
slaughter and export from the state
for slaughter, the rate of horse
theft dropped 34%, according to
California Bureau of Livestock
Identification figures.
A horse that is stolen in
Pennsylvania on Sunday can be sold
at New Holland on Monday and will be
slaughtered in Canada by Wednesday
afternoon. Horses that enter the
slaughter pipeline, via horse
auctions, are anonymous. This
anonymity clearly enables a horse
thief to gain a quick return on his
work.
The slaughter house does not care
for the horse's history. The
slaughter house only cares about the
value of the horse's carcass, and
better carcasses come from young and
healthy horses (pleasure horses and
racehorses, for example).
Essentially, by fair means or
foul, kill buyers need to satisfy
their contracts and will purchase
horses ready for slaughter.
Unwanted: What Does That
Mean?
While slaughter does enable every
horse to be "wanted" and provides a
more fluid marketplace for low-end
horses, let us establish what it
means to label a horse as
"unwanted". The pro-slaughter
viewpoint is that all horses
slaughtered are unwanted. We have
noted above that it simply is not
true.
For the purposes of this
discussion let us assume that an
"unwanted horse" means it is
unwanted by the horse's current
owner, who is willing to take the
least available economic return for
the horse in order to dispose of the
animal quickly. This does not mean
the horse is unwanted by the public
- as long as the market is able to
find an owner that does want the
horse.
A case in point: Recently, a
thoroughbred was for sale at Chino
Auction, in Southern California, and
was purchased by a rescue facility,
Tranquility Farm, which outbid a
kill buyer (horse slaughter is
illegal in California, but there is
still some illegal trade).
The horse was rescued for $US250.
As the horse entered the sale it was
"unwanted". Fortunately for the
horse it became wanted (purchased by
the rescue) and upon further
research the horse had true value as
a Seabiscuit descendant and was
transported to Ridgewood Ranch, a
part of the Seabiscuit Heritage
Foundation. The horse was clearly
"wanted", but not all horses are so
lucky.
Many horses that are slaughtered
are not "unwanted", they are simply
"unlucky".
Slaughter is convenient
for the industry
The horse industry has come to
rely on horse slaughter to help it
remove unwanted horses and enable
owners to focus their resources on
horses that are in their prime.
Horse slaughter also enables
breeders to continue to breed horses
knowing that their prime, a much
shorter timeframe than their entire
life, is all that matters as the
owners have slaughter as a means of
disposal.
A horse that is
stolen in
Pennsylvania on
Sunday can be sold
at New Holland on
Monday and will be
slaughtered in
Canada by Wednesday
afternoon.
|
|
It is truly unfortunate that this
means of disposal also allows
breeders to slaughter foals that do
not have the perfect conformation
necessary for their discipline. Thus
slaughter enables over-breeding,
while permitting the industry to
allow breeding policies that are not
consistent with demand. Breeders
have an economic incentive to
support horse slaughter.
The National Thoroughbred Racing
Association (NTRA) is a marketing
and lobbying organisation for the
horse racing industry.
While the NTRA has implemented
programs such as the RMTC and
Unwanted Horse Coalition, it focuses
most of its lobbying efforts on the
racing industry as a business rather
than the broader issues of horse
welfare.
While the NTRA is not explicitly
pro-slaughter, its lack of active
support for federal anti-slaughter
legislationwhile it aggressively
pursues other legislation is very
telling.
The reality in horseracing in
North America is that the slaughter
option complements the claiming
system where horses trickle down the
system and drop into the slaughter
pipeline.
The claiming system and slaughter
option also make it very difficult
for responsible owners to track
their horses effectively, although
an inquiry to the Daily Racing Form
easily yielded the names of the
seven horses who ran in preceding
month for $US5000 or less and had
made more than $US500,000!
Cappucino Kid, a half-brother to
Medaglio d'Oro and an earner of
$US200,000 in his own right, is an
example of a horse that slid down
the claiming ranks and was in a
feedlot awaiting his trip to
slaughter before he was spotted and
rescued.
He now resides at Old Friends, a
sanctuary for retired racehorses.
Little Cliff, third in the Sir
Barton Stakes on the Preakness
undercard in 2006, is another. This
despite his original connections
marking his Jockey Club papers to
request he be provided a safe
retirement when he had finished
running.
The NTRA is rightly concerned
with the integrity of the horse
racing industry as a product.
Allowing its stars to fall into the
slaughter pipeline does not support
the NTRA's focus on integrity. Using
USDA documents related to the breeds
of horses slaughtered and
thoroughbred breeding records, one
can estimate 37% of thoroughbred
racehorses are slaughtered.
Unfortunately, this number is
speculative. While rules are in
place that mandate that brands and
tattoos of horses going to slaughter
are recorded and included on an
owner/shipper certificate (USDA CFR
88 Commercial Transport of Horses to
Slaughter), this rule is not
enforced by the USDA and the racing
industry has not insisted this rule
is enforced.
Are any horses
"unwanted"?
Yes, and this is where I depart
from the conventional wisdom of some
of the anti-slaughter community.
There are horses that are old,
infirm, dangerous or an insurance
and economic liability and simply
need to have their lives ended.
That being said, most horses are
humanely euthanized by their owners
to end their lives at the right
time. Only one in eight of the
horses that die each year are
slaughtered (assuming 100,000 horses
are slaughtered and about 800,000
die each year).
There are two reasons to end a
horse's life: it is no longer humane
to keep the horse alive; and it is
no longer economically viable for
the owner to keep the horse, and he
or she cannot find it a new home.
The number of "unwanted" horses
that cannot easily be rehomed that
are slaughtered is unknown, and
clearly not the same as the number
of horses slaughtered, as the
pro-slaughter community would have
us believe.
There are unwanted horses, but the
numbers are much fewer than those
slaughtered.
If we want to change the mindset
of many people who find slaughter
abhorrent, yet want to know what we
should do with unwanted horses, we
must first admit that this is a
problem and seek out solutions. We
should also be cognisant of the
scale of the problem.
In a tough economy, do we
need slaughter?
Recently, there has been much
media coverage of abuse cases.
It is easy to tie this apparent
increase in abuse cases to the lack
of domestic slaughter (currently
there are no US slaughter houses in
operation, horses are sent to Canada
and Mexico to be slaughtered).
Since slaughter still does remain
an option and the number of American
horses slaughtered in 2007 was only
slightly lower than those
slaughtered in 2006 (the number fell
by only 14%), the assertion that
recent apparent increases in abuse
cases is a function of the absence
of the slaughter option does not
stand up to scrutiny.
It is also worth noting a recent
abuse case in Alberta, Canada in
March 2008 which involved more than
100 horses. The Bouvry slaughter
plant in Alberta is in close
proximity to the horses involved in
this case.
Moreover, despite the large
number of anecdotal cases seen in
the press, the actual number of
cases of abuse and neglect filed in
the US per month actually dropped
from an average of 12 cases
involving 107.6 equines per month
before the last slaughter plant
closed to an average of only 7 cases
involving 79.5 equines per month
afterward.
The downward turn in the economy
is also being blamed for an asserted
(yet unsubstantiated) increase in
the number of unwanted horses and
reported abuse cases. We should note
that the economy is also being
blamed for the increasing number of
homes going into foreclosure, yet no
one appears to label those homes as
"unwanted".
It is true we are suffering tough
economic times, and horses are not
cheap, but that certainly does not
create an argument for the need for
slaughter, and there is no evidence
to suggest that if slaughter was
more accessible (it is currently as
accessible as the nearest horse
auction), then horses that were
being neglected would be
slaughtered.
In fact, one can make the
argument that many abuse cases,
stemming from starvation, are horses
that are wanted yet their current
owner does not have the economic
means to care for those wanted
horses. These owners would never see
the option of slaughter as viable
whether it existed or not and are
likely afraid to sell their horses
at auction because they know their
possible fate.
It also suggests that without the
slaughter option, some of these
horses may have been re-homed and
consequently not abused.
Without slaughter won't
we see more abuse cases?
It is certainly possible. It
would be foolish to try to argue
that no additional abuse cases would
result if slaughter were ended
entirely.
We have not seen a relationship
between abuse cases and slaughter
numbers to date because we are
clearly slaughtering more horses
than the number of unwanted horses.
When we stop slaughtering horses
completely, we will have some
unwanted horses, and it is very
likely that some of those will be
neglected, if we do not assign
additional resources in order to
manage the unwanted horse
population.
It should also be noted that the
potential increase in abuse cases
can not only be offset by additional
resources assigned to manage that
situation, but also by the decrease
in abuse cases that currently stem
from owners unwilling to relinquish
their horses for fear they will end
up in the slaughter pipeline, and by
the increased capacity of rescues
which will be able to adopt horses
out more aggressively without fear
the horses will be redirected to
slaughter.
What to do with
"unwanted" horses
If we are able to determine that
there are unwanted horses and
estimate the numbers, we are then in
a better position to develop
solutions for this problem that
allow us to think beyond slaughter.
Slaughter accounts for one in eight
horses that die each year. Thus we
need to increase our capacity to
humanely end our horses' lives by
less than 15%.
If and when slaughter is ended,
there can be no doubt that the price
of horses sold at "loose horse" and
low-end auctions will at least
temporarily adjust downward. This in
turn will increase the affordability
to some buyers and will provide a
disincentive to over breeding. So
the supply of "unwanted" horses will
diminish as it did in the 1990s.
We should also note that a happy
but resource-intensive consequence
of a zero slaughter solution is the
extension of an average horse's
lifespan (a function of the group
that would have been slaughtered
that is now rehabilitated or simply
re-homed to a new life and career).
Solutions that include a
disincentive to breed can counter
the increase in the horse population
that stems from increased horse
rehabilitation and rehoming.
A four-pronged approach appears
appropriate. First we need to
develop a robust humane euthanasia
and disposal solution on a
state-by-state basis. Humane
euthanasia programs can be in place
at horse auctions as well as horse
rescues. Second, we need to identify
additional resources to create
incentives for horse rescues to
absorb more horses that can either
be retired or rehabilitated. Third,
we need to attack the demand for
horse meat with a marketing campaign
that illustrates that horses are not
fit for human consumption, according
to the drugs that each horse has
been administered over its lifetime
(you can simply read the label on a
commonly used worming product).
Finally, we need to create an
educational program for breeders and
horse owners for more responsible
horse management. Of course, these
solutions require funding. Sources
of funding can include:
- Breed programs can attach a
surcharge when a horse is
registered to the breed. This
would not be unique to the horse
industry. Another industry with
a disposal problem, the tire
industry, adds a surcharge for
each new tire sold in order to
pay for recycling the tire when
it is not longer useful. Such a
program will be economically
insignificant compared to the
$US39 billion a year ($US102
billion indirectly) that the
horse industry generates.
- A surcharge can be applied
each time a horse changes
ownership and this change is
registered with the horse's
breed registry. Racehorses that
are claimed are more likely to
be at risk of slaughter, but can
generate more revenue for
retirement under this scenario.
- Racetracks can develop
programs that support their
athletes. There are already
examples of this occurring
(Fingerlakes, Philadelphia Park
and Woodbine). Racinos which
have additional revenue via
their Casino contracts are in an
even better position to support
their athletes.
- Racing jurisdictions can
develop programs for the
retirement of horses that ran
within their state. California
is an example - .3% of purses
distributed in California are
earmarked for horse retirement
and rehabilitation. This money
is distributed by California
Retirement Management Account
(CARMA).
The infrastructure is already in
place to deal with a horse industry
without slaughter. Horses can still
go to auction houses whose business
included horses going to slaughter.
Rather than being bid on by kill
buyers, rescues and private buyers,
the horses will be bid on by rescues
and private buyers. Only those
horses with no bids can then be
humanely euthanized or returned to
their current owner.
This scenario continues to ensure
that a horse such as Seabiscuit's
descendant will not remain
languishing in a field, unwanted,
but has the chance of being
discovered by someone or an
organization that wants her.
As we move to this scenario, it
will be important that auction
houses and horse dealers receive the
same compensation as they do now in
order to incentivise them to
participate in a post slaughter era.
Horses are increasingly being sold
on internet sites; those with no
bids can be shipped to their local
rescue or horse auction for humane
euthanasia.
Funds that are raised can be
redistributed to auction houses for
each horse that is euthanized. Money
raised to support horse rescues can
be redistributed via grants based on
the number of horses rescued, the
number of horses adopted out and the
number of horses humanely
euthanized.
It should also be noted that a
marketplace without slaughter will
enable rescues to be more aggressive
with adopting out the horses they
rehabilitate. One of the significant
risks of adopting out a horse, and
therefore losing direct control over
the horse, is that the horse will
return to the slaughter supply
chain. This risk will be eliminated.
Ease of adoption will allow
rescues to expand their adopter
pools. This is fundamentally
important to the expansion of the
rescue industry.
In conclusion, compassionate
horse people do not want horse
slaughter, but many have been
convinced that it is necessary.
"I would never send my horses to
slaughter, of course not. But we do
need slaughter as an option." This
common response among horsemen
indicates a personal distaste for
slaughter as an option, and while
the personal conviction of not
selling horses for slaughter has
merit, it only helps the person's
horses until those horses are sold
to another owner.
The evidence clearly shows that
horse slaughter is not necessary and
has thrived as a function of the
demand for horse meat in Europe and
Asia.
The horse industry has become
lazy and has come to rely on
slaughter as a convenient means to
dispose of excess horses. But that
is not why horse slaughter exists
and we slaughter far more horses
than those that are simply unwanted.
We need to change the mindset
that slaughter is necessary. Good
horsemanship and stewardship of the
horse, and good stewardship of the
horse industry, is necessary.
We should also acknowledge that
without the horse, human
civilisation would be very
different. The horse has had more
impact on human development than any
other animal or technology.