QUESTION: Will the Legislation lead to an increase in horse abuse and starvation or neglect cases?
ANSWER: No, State bans on horse slaughter have not led to an increase in horse abuse and neglect. In California, where horse slaughter was banned in 1998, there has been no corresponding rise in cruelty and neglect cases. In fact, horse theft has dropped in CA by 34% since the enactment of the ban. There was no documented rise in Illinois following closure of the state’s only horse slaughter plant in 2002. Further, allowing one’s horse to starve is not an option – state anti-cruelty laws prohibit such neglect. Rather, people will have their horses humanely euthanized which will remain legal under my Amendment. Finally, the idea that horse slaughter is necessary to deal with the “unwanted horse” population is a myth. According to the USDA, at least 5,000 horses have been IMPORTED into one of the three (France or Belgium) foreign-owned slaughter plants in the U.S. for slaughter since August 2004. If there were too many horses, there would be no reason to IMPORT horses for slaughter
QUESTION: Didn’t we already take care of this problem by passing the Agricultural Appropriations amendment last year?
ANSWER: No. Unfortunately, the USDA has circumvented the will of Congress by illegally paying for inspections. We are fighting this violation of the Federal Meat Inspection Act in court (February 2006 Lawsuit). But the temporary nature of appropriations amendment will limit any positive effect from the amendment. It is outrageous that any agency can thumb its nose at Congress in this manner – especially after landslide, bipartisan votes in both House (269-158) and Senate (69-28). This endrun by the USDA underscores the reason we need to pass H.R. 503/S. 1915 and enact a permanent ban on horse slaughter.
QUESTION: Isn’t slaughter a form of human euthanasia?
ANSWER: No. Horse slaughter is a far cry from humane euthanasia. “Euthanasia” means a gentle, painless death provided in order to prevent suffering. Horse slaughter is a death fraught with terror, pain, and suffering. Horses are shipped for more than 24 hours at a time in crowded, double-decked cattle trucks without food, water, or rest. Pregnant mares, foals, injured horses, and even blind horses must endure the journey. Once they arrive, their suffering intensifies – “Undercover footage” obtained by The Humane Society Of The United States demonstrates that “fully conscious” horses are shackled and hoisted by the rear leg and have their throats slit. Because horses are skittish by nature, it is particularly difficult to align them correctly and ensure the captive bolt gun renders them unconscious. Unwanted horses should be humanely euthanized by a licensed veterinarian when “no other option” exists, rather than placed on a truck, cruelly transported, injured, and then butchered. The “vast majority of horse owners” already provide humane euthanasia for older or ill horses.
QUESTION: What will we do with all the unwanted horses who otherwise would go to slaughter if there isn’t room for them in sanctuaries?
ANSWER: Not every horse currently going to slaughter will need to be absorbed into the rescue community – many will be sold to a new owner; Others will be kept longer and a licensed veterinarian will humanely euthanize some. Passage of this legislation will not necessarily lead to an increase in the number of horses sent to rescue facilities, precisely because humane euthanasia is so widely used. It is not the government’s responsibility to provide for the care of horses voluntarily given up by their owners, as these animals are private property. Hundreds of horse rescue organizations operate around the country, and additional facilities are being established. In an effort to “end the slaughter of racehorses,” the New York Racing Association has partnered with other groups to launch the “Ferdinand Fee” to raise funds for the care of retired racehorses, and to honor Ferdinand, a former Kentucky Derby Winner, who went to slaughter. The organizations leading the charge in favor of the legislation are the very organizations that are actively working to provide sanctuaries and solutions for any horses that would otherwise go to slaughter.
QUESTION: If slaughter is not an option, what will we do with sick, old, and ‘unwanted horses?”
ANSWER: Approximately 690,000 horses die annually in this country (10 percent of an estimated population of 6.9 million) and the vast majority are not slaughtered, but euthanized and rendered for burial without any negative environmental impact instead. Humane euthanasia and carcass disposal is highly affordable and widely available. The average cost of having a horse humanely euthanized and safely disposing of the animal’s carcass is approximately $225, while the average monthly cost of keeping a horse is approximately $200.00
QUESTION: Is it true that slaughter is only a last resort for infirm, dangerous, or no longer serviceable horses?
ANSWER: No. 92.3% of horses arriving at slaughter plants in this country are in “good” condition, according to the US Department of Agriculture’s Guidelines for Handling and Transporting Equines to Slaughter. Horses arrive at slaughter after being purchased by “killer buyers” (middlemen hired by slaughterhouses to secure horses) who seek out “healthy, fat horses” who provide greater profits than older, leaner horses.
QUESTION: Won’t the disposal of thousands of horse carcasses cause environmental issues?
ANSWER: Hundreds of thousands of horses are safely disposed of annually by means other than slaughter, and the infrastructure “can absorb” an increase in numbers. Conversely, the operation of the horse slaughterhouses has a “very real negative impact,” with all three in “violation of current environmental law relating to the disposal of blood and other waste materials.” Mayor Paula Bacon of Kaufman, Texas – the home of one of the three horse slaughter plants in the United States – desperately states “…Dallas Crown is operating in violation of a multitude of local laws pertaining to waste management, air quality, and other
Environmental concerns…Residents are also fed up with the situation. Long established neighbors living adjacent to the plant cannot open their windows or run their air conditioners without enduring the most horrific stench.”
QUESTION: Won’t this legislation result in “unregulated shipment of horses to slaughter” and horses being shipped longer distances to Canada or Mexico for slaughter?
ANSWER: No. Under the bill, American horses “are not allowed to be exported for slaughter.” The bill will terminate any legal option for sending American horses to slaughter – within the United States at one of the three, foreign-owned plants or any foreign slaughterhouse.
QUESTION: Don’t transport regulations provide strong protection for horses being shipped to slaughter?
ANSWER: No. The 2002 regulations allow horses to be shipped for more than 24 hours without food, water or rest, with broken limbs, with eyes missing, even heavily pregnant. Industry pushes to delay the prohibition on use of double-decker trucks until December 7, 2006. The regulations only cover the final journey to the slaughterhouse. If horses are loaded and unloaded, at various places a part of their route to slaughter, only the final leg of the trip is covered. Enforcement of these regulations will only occur if the truck reaches the slaughter plant, so these guidelines will have little preventative effect. These regulations are wholly inadequate and allow extreme suffering in transport to continue.
QUESTION: Aren’t many horse sanctuaries lacking adequate facilities and uniform standards?
ANSWER: No. Standards of care have already been developed and embraced by hundreds of equine rescue and retirement facilities that exist throughout the country that routinely rescue horses from slaughter. The Doris Day Animal League and the Animal Welfare Institute published “Basic Guidelines for Operating an Equine Rescue or Retirement Facility” in 2004. Additionally, the Association of Sanctuaries and the American Sanctuaries Association provide accreditation programs, a code of ethics and guidelines for the operation of sanctuaries and rescue organizations. Horse rescue groups must also comply with state and local animal welfare statutes.
QUESTION: Won’t the federal government face the financial burden of care for horses no longer going to slaughter?
ANSWER: Certainly not. Horses that are currently going to slaughter would not suddenly become the financial responsibility of the federal government. Horse owners, not the government, will remain responsible for the care of their horses. Owners who no longer wish to keep their horses and who cannot sell or place their horses in a new home will have the option of human euthanasia. Again, the average cost for veterinarian-administered euthanasia and carcass disposal is approximately $225, the cost of one month’s care – is simply a part of responsible horse ownership.
QUESTION: Won’t the prohibition on horse slaughter create negative precedent for beef, pork and poultry producers by legitimizing efforts to end consumption of food derived from any animal?
ANSWER: No. Americans don’t eat horses, and unlike other livestock, we don’t breed them for human consumption. Additionally, horses are different from cattle (and other animals specifically bred, sold and transported for human consumption) due to their instinctive flight response in stressful situations, making it difficult to accurately stun them prior to slaughter. “Undercover footage has demonstrated that many horses are dismembered while fully conscious,” underscoring the need to ban this utterly inhumane process. The American public overwhelmingly supports a ban on horse slaughter precisely because horses have a “special place in our heritage” and they are “beloved companions to millions today.”
QUESTION: Isn’t horsemeat a healthy and lean option for human consumption?
ANSWER: Actually, horsemeat is potentially dangerous to people when eaten because horses are not raised for this purpose. Recent lab work revealed that horsemeat from one of the Texas plants contains several substances that are not intended for human consumption. Our horses are regularly treated with worming medications, drugs, and other injections that are not intended for human consumption.
QUESTION: What does the American public think?
ANSWER: Poll after poll shows that Americans want this practice to end. There has been extensive media coverage on this issue by newspapers and television networks nationwide including CNN, The L.A. Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, an many others. For years, legislation that would prohibit horse slaughter has been under consideration in Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives engaged in thoughtful and substantial public floor debate on the horse slaughter ban amendment which led to its passage by a landslide bipartisan vote of 269-158. This was followed by the Senate’s 69-28 vote on an identical amendment.
QUESTION: If there is a ban on horse slaughter, will horsemeat no longer be available for pet food?
ANSWER: There is no horsemeat in pet food. This practice stopped decades ago and has some connection to the enactment of protections for American Wild Horses in 1971. The U.S. public and Congress were outrages to learn federal agencies were rounding up and allowing the exploitation and slaughter of these “national treasures” for items such as pet food. Some by-products of the horse slaughter industry are used in various consumer items but they are derived from the rendering (an entirely different process than slaughter and not affected by the Amendment) of dead horses and other animals.
QUESTION: If this bill is passed, will zoos be prevented from feeding their big cats an adequate diet?
ANSWER: No. Zoos will be able to continue to fee horse meat to their big cats, as the amendment will only stop domestic slaughter of horses for human consumption. The Federal Meat Inspection Act doesn’t require the same inspections for meat products intended for animal use. However, there is a growing trend to feed a beef-based diet to captivate big cats. Several USDA-licensed facilities that keep big cats like lions and tigers have switched over to such diets because it is better for the cat’s health.
QUESTION: Don’t slaughterhouses provide meaningful financial resources for their communities? And employ many workers who will be out of a job?
ANSWER: In all three local communities, horse slaughterhouses have worn out their welcome. For example – on August 15, 2005, the Kaufman City Council, home to Dallas Crown, fed up with the ongoing problems stretching from the plant’s opening in 1986, voted unanimously to implement termination proceedings against the plant. Mayor Paula Bacon of Kaufman has written a letter to the entire Senate requesting federal action to stop horse slaughter in their community. She came to Washington D.C. with several Kaufman residents asking for help from the U.S. Congress through passage of the amendments last year and the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. Both of the other horse slaughterhouses, also foreign-owned, have repeatedly been fined for violations of local laws and creating sewage overflows in the community. These plants pay less local property tax ($7500 for Dallas Crown) than an average citizen in the community. There is no import or export tariff on horse meat and most, if not all, of the profits are sent back to the parent companies in France and Belgium. It is difficult for these communities to attract new businesses because of the negative stigma created by these plants. The minimal financial contributions of these facilities are vastly overshadowed by the enormous economic and development – suppressing burden they represent to their local communities and the “negative image they create for our country.” As Mayor Bacon said in her letter.
“The more I learn about horse slaughter, the more certain I am: There is no justification for horse slaughter in this country. The three plants are foreign-owned, employing fewer than 150 people. We do not raise horses to eat, we do not eat horse meat, and our American economy does not profit from this industry. My city is little other than a door mat for a foreign-owned business that drains our resources and stigmatizes our economic development. There is no justification for supporting horse slaughter over my community.” She goes on to state, “As a community leader where we are directly impacted by the horse slaughter industry, I can assure you the economic development return for our community is negative. The foreign-owned companies profit at our expense – it is time for them to go.”
QUESTION: Don’t these slaughterhouses employ many workers who will be out of a job?
ANSWER: The plants employ a sum total of less than 150 workers and those workers receive poor pay and benefits. Many are undocumented immigrants who work in one of the highest risk jobs because horses, in particular, are so flighty that they are difficult to stun properly before dismemberment. This leads to a high rate of injury and limb loss among workers as they wield sharp knives and deal with fractious horses. The employment opportunities related to the horse slaughter industry are vastly overshadowed by the direct harm to their employees, the enormous burden they represent to their local communities, and the negative impact they create for our country.
QUESTION: Won’t people just lie and ship horses to Mexico and Canada under false pretenses?
ANSWER: If they do, they will be criminally liable under the False Claims Act which makes it illegal to falsify any information in statements made to the U.S. government. Further, any legislative change requires enforcement and there is already an enforcement mechanism in place with the USDA. Making it illegal to move horses this way, as the legislation does, will at the very least, dramatically reduce the number of horses exported for slaughter and it will make a criminal of anyone who dares to continue this practice. We remain committed to funding the USDA’s enforcement efforts, as we have for many years, to ensure that anyone acting illegally is prosecuted.
September 14, 2006 HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
