A Controversial Subject

20 Dec posted by

It’s been quite some time since I’ve talked about horse processing. But with the bipartisan passage through the House and Senate of the H2112, The Conference Committee Report on Spending, which among other things, funds the USDA, there’s been quite the controversy stirred up again about Horse Slaughter. The President approved the bill and signed it on November 18th. How this affects horses is simple. Only a few states, Texas, being one of them, make it illegal to process horse meat.

Let’s begin by debunking the myth that horse slaughter became “illegal”. What forced the closures of the processing plants the US had, was the bill passed in 2005, prohibiting funding to pay USDA meat inspectors to inspect horse meat, for human consumption, bound for dinner plates overseas.

With that said, those of you who have been reading here for quite some time, know that I make no qualms about being in favor of processing facilities. However, a few weeks ago, I wrote, what I think, is probably my most eloquent explanation on the need for them, and I thought I’d share it here. I’d love to have a dialogue with you if you can be nice.

The term, “humane” is a human notion and by very definition applies to humans. It’s one to which the horse doesn’t relate. The horse understands and lives in the moment. And by treating a horse as a human, we’re disrespecting them. I’m not saying this is cause for abuse. I’m saying we need to treat a horse like he is- as a horse. I’ve written an entire diatribe on the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, so before you go thinking I’m just mean, you should go read this.

Further, I’m not saying we can’t do slaughter better. I’d love to see a facility designed by Temple Grandin, placed on several hundred acres where horses can eat some grass and live normally for the last few hours of their life. I’d also like to see facilites in about every 3rd -5th state. That would do away with the long trailer rides. I’m also in favor of only transporting them in trailers designed for horses.

What I’m not in favor of is
1) People’s emotions running amok which is what got the horse into this mess.

2) People spewing forth untruths. If you didn’t spend a couple hours reading the GAO report on the State of the Horse Industry (if you did, good for you! I did too!) I’d prefer NOT to hear from you. If you’ve read it and still think we can save them all, good for you. I applaud your passion, though I vehemently disagree with you.

3) People who tout and, or believe that breeders haven’t stopped breeding due to the state of the market. It’s not true. I know at least a six breeders (ourselves included) who have changed their breeding program due to the market- why breed horses the market won’t support? There are also many people who bred horses for a living that have left the industry due to horses being worth next to nothing.

4) I am not in favor of are people refusing to look at the facts, logically.

5) I despise those that spread mistruths- those people that believe breeders get tax incentives without talking to breeders first. If they’re (tax incentives) available we’re certainly unaware of them. Or the myth that all the horses that end up in the killer have bute (a carcinogenic) in their systems. We don’t, as a rule, take our horses to the vet, and rarely do I use Bute in my horses. I do keep it on hand, but I can tell you that most all the horses we send, have never ever had a dose of bute. While I can’t speak for other ranchers, I’d venture to say that many of the horses they send are also bute free.

I have heard it said that 70% of Americans are opposed to horse slaughter. That’s well and good, but of those 70% how many are actually horse owners? According to 2007 numbers of the AVMA, only 1.8% of US households actually own a horse. So essentially people who are unwilling to take on the responsibility of a horse, are continuing to throw fits, when they clearly don’t have all the facts. It is expensive to keep a horse. And if you can’t feed your family, how are you supposed to feed your horse? If you can’t afford to feed your horse, how are you supposed to pay to put him down (and if he’s perfectly good why would you want to?)? If you can’t put him down, and can’t feed him and can’t find a rescue to take him, what do you do with him? Previously, they’d take him to a sale barn, and he may or may not go to the kill buyer. But now, you take that horse to the sale barn, and it may actually cost you money (that you may or may not have) to sell that horse.

People who were/are in the equine industry knew that what did happened would happen. These weren’t “unintended” consequences. This is exactly what we expected to happen. If there were no floor price on your car when you needed to be done with it, (as in scrap metal) a lot of you would be upset with that because you’d have something worthless that you couldn’t even give away- save for to your local junk man- assuming you have one. A team of researchers at Utah State actually did a study on the industry in 2008- here’s what they have to say: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. And here’s where you can read what the industry looked like in 2007. If, for example, we made it say, illegal to sell houses to a certain sector of the economy, that’d be like telling a contractor, “I realize you build houses for a living, but guess what? You can no longer sell your houses in such and such a market.” Your career as a home-builder is now jeopardized and you would be all kinds of upset. As much as anti-slaughter folks hate to look at horses as a business, an entire sector of the economy, one that was the third largest in GDP has been destroyed. But it’s okay if we ruin people’s careers, livelihoods, and passions. We’re saving horses, right?

I love my horses as much or more than every other “horse lover”, as I choose to make my living, however sparse at times it may be, from the back of a horse; but I also love my horse enough to let him have a purpose in life and death. That doesn’t mean that every horse I ever own will go to the kill pen when his life is over. But I have sent horses to fill a Frenchman’s belly. It’s much kinder to do that than to have them die in a nasty South Dakota winter; or starve to death because his teeth have fallen out of his head and he can’t eat. Most times if that’s the case, we’ll help them along, but we don’t like it to get to that point, so we send them off before they get there.

I’m not sure exactly what happened that has made it culturally acceptable to butcher cows and eat them, but not acceptable to butcher horses. So many of us have forgotten that up until the 70s horse meat was available in many local meat markets.

The “unwanted horse” problem is compounded in the Western US (South Dakota being in the Western US), on many Reservations. The feral horse population is estimated to be 60k on the Navajo reservation; upwards of 20k on others. Many Native Americans that made their living riding and training these horses have been left destitute due to the price that trained horses are currently bringing; and the overflow of horses is ruining the landscape- killing off precious vegetation for other species- and that problem is worse on the drought ridden Navajo Reservation. Grass isn’t infinite, contrary to what many animal rights advocates will argue. Horses are much harder on the ground than cloven-hooved animals. People around the country are now giving horses away that are trained, if they can find someone to take them, so anyone who trained a good using horse, may have trouble getting their money (read: time) out of a horse they’ve trained. Oh they may be able to sell him, but for a penance of what their time is actually worth. I suppose to make it more relatable, let’s say your job warrants $20/hour, but there’s now too many of you in the field, so the economy will only handle paying you minimum wage now. I bet you’d be all kinds of thrilled about that- especially if what you’re doing for a living is your passion, something you’ve always wanted to do. And maybe it’s all you know how to do. What are you going to do now?

I know that for many, I’ve wasted my breath. I’m not going to change the minds of the militant anti-slaughter folks, but there are many of you on the fence that are open-minded enough to realize that this issue is truly about doing what’s right for the horse. I’m not trying to tell anyone that they have to send their horse to be dinner; I’m simply asking folks to be open-minded enough to allow that as an option.

From what I understand and have read, it sounds like the USDA is gearing up to do it better this time, but I fear even that won’t satiate a lot of you who say it will. I would encourage all of you to read up on what’s truly going on (look at the numbers- I believe at one time in the late 80s, to early 90s we processed almost 300k horses in one year). Start thinking logically, and realize that good horses aren’t an accident. Someone put thought into that breeding; and if you don’t have people around to put thought into breeding you’ll be left with whatever someone who decided a baby horse “would be cute to have” making those decisions, or performance horse folks who aren’t necessarily concerned with raising “gentle”, trainable horses. I’m certain that’s not what the industry, or those of you that have been around a nice horse want or need either.

Happy Trails!

PS. Comments will be kept open as long as people can be nice. If you’re mean, disrespectful, or start with personal attacks, you will be banned.


Filed Under: horse slaughter, horses

The State of the Horse Industry: Part 4

3 Mar posted by

In case you’ve been in a hole and haven’t been paying attention, we’ve been discussing the current state of the horse industry. So you can catch up and join in the discussion, you might want to start at the beginning:

Introduction
Part One
Animal Rights v. Animal Welfare
Part Two
Part Three
Part one: Grass Isn’t Infinite

We’ve been going through the paper written in a collaborative effort through the University of Utah. Today we’ll look at the Fourth Argument in favor of closing the U.S. Run Horse Processing Facilities.

Argument 4. Owners have other methods to deal with unwanted horses, such as euthanasia, burial, sell the horse, or send to rescue facility.

While many options have been available to horse owners, more of these are becoming less available and more expensive.  According to Dr. Temple Grandin 25 percent of horse owners are low income owners (Grandin, 2007) and according to the American Horse Council low to moderate income families make up 45 percent of horse owners with an annual household income between $25,000 and $75,000 (Ahern, 2006). “More than two million Americans own horses, and more than a third of those owners have a household income of less than $50,000 (Prada, 2008).  Any type of disruption of income can tip the scale when it comes to being a responsible horse owner. Many times these owners could count on making a little money at a sale but now the price for middle to lower end horses has severely dropped. Horses that a year ago would bring $400 – $500 now might bring $50 – $100 or might not sell (emphasis mine because I have horses that are gentle, well bred and I can’t give them away). One auction company stated that “a few years ago unwanted horses may have gone for $200 -$300. Now they are around $50 -$100 (Byrns, 2007) (*or $5-10/head in 2009- ask the local kill buyer in South Dakota). Devin Mullet, owner of Kalona Sales Barn, Iowa, said that for the “first time in my life I’ve seen livestock that has no value” (Einhorn, 2008). This drop in U. S. horse value after the processing plants closure was predicted two years earlier by North et al. (2005, p.14).

Due to high feed and hay prices many people can’t or don’t want the burden of continuing to feed a horse and others, including rescue facilities, can’t afford to take on any more horses due to the market and feed costs.

Chemical euthanasia by a veterinarian is a choice for horse owners in disposing of ill or chronically lame horses. This is expensive for the owner. Veterinary cost of euthanasia can range from $60 – $100 followed by the expense of disposing of the body. In many instances, due to environmental regulations, horses cannot be buried on site, but if allowed, the owner may well be looking at an additional $300 or more in costs if a backhoe is required (Ahern et al., 2006 p 7,8). According to Ahern et al., (2006) and North et al., (2005, p. 4) landfills have taken carcasses in the past but some are now banning carcasses or charging a fee. Rendering plants will remove carcasses but some now are charging a substantial fee or will not pick up individual horses (Ahern et al., 2006, p.8).

Rescue facilities across the country are feeling the pinch. The Pittsburg Post-Gazette indicated “every horse rescue and farm animal rescue that I deal with currently has a “no room in the inn” sign on their barn doors. They all have waiting lists” (Fuoco, 2007). The San Antonio Express News indicated that “…rescues struggle with too many horses, too little money and no national standards” (Sandberg, 2007).  Dr. Mark Lutschaunig also confirmed there are not enough rescues and retirements facilities out there to handle these horses; most are full and cannot take in any more horses not only due to space but partly due to the expense (2007). Research by Utah State University also shows the similar results. Brian Dees, President of the Georgia Equine Rescue League, stated that “the number of unwanted horses has gone through the roof; the number of requests to take horses off a person’s hand has gone up by as much as 5000 percent”.  Dees stated not having the harvesting facilities is one of the worse things that has happened to the U.S. horse industry (B. Dees, personal communication, January 3, 2008). According to Morgan Silver, Executive Director of the Horse Protection Association of Florida, a bigger mess has been created by the closing of the houses before the real problem of excessive breeding was addressed (M. Silver, personal communication, January 3, 2008).  Bill Whitman, co-owner of Horse- Angels Ranch, Indiana, indicated contacts to his facility are up four fold. They are seeing younger horses people don’t want to take care of anymore and they don’t know how to deal with them (B. Whitman, personal communication, December 8, 2007). In an article Whitman stated last year “8,000 horses were sent from Indiana to Illinois for slaughter, but now slaughtering horses has been banned. With that avenue closed and more unwanted horses, “it’s going to be a nightmare” (Vierebome, 2007). Kathleen Schwartz, Director and Founder of Days End Horse Rescue, Maryland, said that they get 3 – 5 emails a day from people looking to get rid of their horses which their rescue has to turn away. While she gives them the names of local rescues, she knows they are already busting at the seams (K. Schwartz, personal communication, October 16, 2007). Jenny Edwards, Director of Hope for Horses, Washington, echoes other rescues by saying her rescue is full. She also noted in the past the horses they were involved with were usually in good condition when they received them. Now they are seeing horses that are more sickly which increases time of stay and ultimately rescue costs. Horses that would have gone to slaughter in the past now languish longer in pastures and are in poorer condition when rescues receive them, making it harder on rescue facilities (J. Edwards, personal communication, October 25, 2007).  Jennifer Williams, Director of Blue Bonnet Equine Humane, Texas, voiced concerns over groups supporting the antislaughter bill when they say the market will correct itself and then they walked away.  Rescues now have to take care of the problem which she felt was very short sighted (J. Williams, personal communication, November 13, 2007). According to North et al. (2005, p.14) “if these horses are not euthanized, caring for each horse will cost rescue facilities approximately $2,340 per year, depending on location.”

Not discussed in the above paper are the numbers from the Animal Welfare Council’s February 2010 report:

This report shows that horses are now valued at around 40% of the worth they had in 2005. That’s a pretty steep price decline.  This same report- by industry experts and veterinarians- said that the industry was warned that the closure of the plants would lead to an increase in abandoned and unwanted horses, and would severely strain rescue facilities as well as sheriff’s departments and local municipalities. According to the report “over 90% of those polled indicated the number of neglected and abused horses is increasing.”  Furthermore, “Experts said the closure of the USDA-regulated plants would lead to increased equine neglect, abuse, and malnourishment.  It did. There are many reports documenting the rise in neglect, abuse and abandonment including one from the Colorado Department of Agriculture stating that the number of equine cruelty investigations in Colorado rose 60 percent from 2005 to 2009.”

The idea that we will never have unwanted horses and will never  need to have a processing facility, is Utopian in theory at best; the trouble is, there will always be horses that are unwanted. Despite the best training, despite education, even despite some who have the idea that we should charge a fee to breed every mare. I’m not even sure where or how you’d regulate that, but that’s not the point. The point is the current situation.   We’ve not saved a single horse from slaughter. We’ve made them take a longer trailer ride; we’ve put them in at least one country where there is little, if any regulation, where those people don’t have the same respect and regard for our animals as we do, and in many instances we’re prolonging their life, because it costs a person money to feed them, and they’re not feeding them well, or at all, so when they are “rescued”, they’re in terrible shape.

Something else to be noted- even if you can afford to euthanize the horse- is the additional kill rate of animals that consume the euthanized horse and ingest the poisons (page 10).

If a person can’t sell the horse, can’t give it away, and can’t afford to feed it, prey tell, how do you expect that person to be able to afford to euthanize it and dispose of the carcass?  And to take it further, why would a person want to euthanize a perfectly good horse?  At the very least with the processing plants open, they had the option of feeding someone who chose to eat it and if their horse was ride-able, gentle, even if it was grade (unregistered) it had a decent value. Today, a horse like that is a dime a dozen and pretty much worthless.  And in case you forgot- we ate a lot of horse meat in this country during World War II and during the 70s. So don’t go there.  With a horse having little to no value, unless it’s a bang up rodeo horse, reiner, cutter or hunter (for example) what does the person who makes up the majority of owners in our industry do with their horse they can’t sell, give away, feed, or afford to euthanize?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- we’re so concerned with what happens to the horse at death we have forgotten to be concerned with it while it is alive.  This series is about to wrap up, and as always I’m open to discussion, but if you can’t be nice, don’t bother.

11 Comments
Filed Under: horse slaughter, horses, peta, ranching

The State of the Horse Industry: Part 3

8 Feb posted by

Previously we’ve looked at Arguments 1 and 2, in favor of closing the horse processing facilities.  And if you missed the introduction, or the post that defined animal rights vs. animal welfare, you might want to catch up before reading this one!

Today we’ll tackle Argument 3 (from this report)- that horse owners will do the responsible thing.  As we’ve already learned- the majority of horse owners make between $25 and $75k per year.  The average cost to keep a horse yearly is between $2500-5000 per horse (with vet care).  This is based on numbers I’ve read around the country, and my own math from what I did when I was training 5+ horses per month for others (note- I was keeping horses in town- not turned out on the range)- bringing the total amount of horses I fed/maintained yearly to about 9-10 horses per month. Do the math.

Argument 3. Horse owners will be responsible and take care of their horses so a ban on slaughter will not result in horses not being cared for.


Horse ownership has many different interpretations and levels of commitment. While many horse owners take very good care of their horses this does not hold true for everyone. While neglect may not be intentional in some instances, it happens. Educating owners to proper nutrition, dental and hoof care, can make big changes to the horse’s management.

Reports of horses being abandoned are on the increase (Associated Press, 2007). Reported through the Brownfield Ag News for American, “Closing horse processing plants in the United States has led to increased abandonment and neglect of horses in this country and the inhumane death of horses across the border” (Young, 2007).  A Georgia Tifton Gazette article indicates rising neglect is evident across the state due to many factors, one of which is the closing of the slaughter houses (Cone, 2007). In Utah’s Department of Agriculture and Food, Terry Menlove, Director of the Division of Animal Industry, reports a larger number than usual of abandoned horses. Because of a lack of places to send older horses, some owners are keeping these horses and the horses starve to death in the field (T. Menlove, personal communication, January 2, 2008). Reported inthe Drovers Alert “the number of owners charged with animal cruelty due to neglected horses is on the rise as the price of horse ownership increases. So, the fallout from the closure of the slaughter facilities: More horse are suffering from starvation and neglect” (Henderson, 2008). The Wall Street Journal cites “the number of horses whose owners won’t or can’t properly care for them is mushrooming” (Prada, 2008). C.J. Hadley, publisher of the magazine called Range, indicated that “animal lovers with big hearts and no idea what’s required to take care of a horse have shut down slaughterhouses that were needed” (Prada, 2008).

If you haven’t witnessed the cruelty known as Mother Nature, and you’re still in favor of keeping closed the slaughter facilities, because you LOVE horses, I recommend you reconsider.  Seeing an old horse die of starvation, colic, or  by freezing to death, etc. is one of the saddest things you’ll ever witness. Bottom line- my horse. My property. I have said it before and I’ll say it again- If I choose to pay a vet to euthanize it for me, so be it. If I choose to send it to the kill plant, so be it.  If someone can’t afford to feed their horse, how can they afford to pay a vet to put it down?  We’ve even discussed the fact that you can’t hardly give a horse away right now.  Since most of  the rescues are full (that is a discussion for another day) I ask you, “what on God’s green earth are they supposed to do with their horse?”  Please note,  I do not advocate cruelty and I certainly don’t like to read stories like the one below:

HSUS offers reward in case of abandoned horses

by Associated Press

Posted on November 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM

******

TACOMA, Wash. – The case of five emaciated horses found abandoned in a Pierce County forest has prompted the Humane Society of the United States to offer a $2,500 reward for information leading to arrests and convictions.

In a statement, the animal welfare organization says it appears the animals were afraid to leave the area where they had been dropped off, and could have been stranded as long as two weeks.

It said the horses discovered Nov. 12 on a logging road near Elbe were cold, hurt and “horribly malnourished.”

The HSUS says two of the horses are about 15 years old; another is suspected to be pregnant and a fifth was euthanized.

The group’s Washington state director, Dan Paul, says struggling horse owners can turn to rescue groups, online adoption programs or even humane euthanasia.

Abandoning animals in Washington is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum 90 days in jail and $1,000 fine.

Pierce County Animal Control is investigating.

Stories like the above are becoming all too common since the closing of horse processing facilities in the US in 2007. As has been discussed here recently, HSUS doesn’t run a single shelter or even help the animals that it “rescues”.

What many of you who, haven’t had the opportunity to see horses in the natural environments, don’t realize is that horses that have lived in a stall, or small acreage all their whole lives, really don’t know how to be a horse, like the horses we have on our ranch. Or like the horses that run wild through the deserts of Nevada, or other parts of the west. They don’t understand how to forage. How to range, or even how to drink. You think to yourself, oh, that should come naturally to the horse, but it doesn’t if they’ve been in a small acreage, or even a barn where there has been food and water in front of them 24/7.  They really don’t know how to go to water once a day and drink; then travel back out several miles to graze. Horses on the range do that daily.

Horses on the range also know how to get along with and read other horses. Horses kept in captivity tend to be more aggressive and mis-read the signs that ferrel horses will give them, such as “get out of my space”. It’s not unusual for a horse previously kept in captivity and then turned out with range horses to end up getting a severe beating, in part due to the fact that they aren’t as fluent at speaking horse as a range horse. They’re also not nearly in the same physical shape as range horses. Trust me. I rode my gray mare, Nora, daily, but when it came time to turn her out with horses twice her age, she couldn’t keep up. It’s like the person that runs on the treadmill vs. the one that runs XC. They’re not even in the same league.

This above story is, I believe,  the direct result of the closing of  US horse processing facilities. The HSUS/ASPCA and PETA took away that option and that part of the market. Why are groups like these not more concerned with the life of the horse while it is alive?  Why are they so concerned with what happens to it at death? We can’t crawl into a horse’s skin, so who are we to say that a captive bolt is any less disturbing to them, than the drug that is given to *humanely* euthanize them?  And why, if these groups, are so concerned with keeping horses from being processed are they not spending a good portion of their war-chest helping struggling horse owners, and rescue groups with things like feed costs, gelding colts, and euthanization? Why do they not run a single rescue group? I ask you, “What really then, is their agenda?”

It really boils down to them putting their money where their mouth is, and as several commenters have previously pointed out- and as we discussed here- these animal rights groups want the extinction of all domesticated animals. They’re on record as saying that. Why would we not believe them?  They spend their money to lobby congress and keep the public perception on their side. They don’t spend their money saving animals.  And those of us that do love our animals, well, we spend our money to keep those animals healthy.

That said, though, we are going to have to do something other than opine about it. Maybe it means getting on the phone with AQHA and urge them lobby for us (which I am told they do). Maybe it means getting on the horn to the local extension agents when we see neglect cases; maybe it means we give any extra money we have to groups like the United Organization of the Horse which is working fervently to bring back “humane” processing in this country. Whatever it means, we better figure it out soon.

As always, comments and discussion are welcome. But don’t troll me, and don’t be ugly. I’m all about discussion if you can refrain from name calling.

4 Comments
Filed Under: horse slaughter, horses, peta, politics, ranching

The State of the Horse Industry: Part 2

2 Feb posted by

This is the second part in our series about the horse industry, so if you missed the introduction or part one, you might want to read those first. I also want to take this moment to make the distinction between “animal rights” and “animal welfare”. I am, as I said earlier this week,  pro-animal welfare.  I want animals to be treated, as good as we can treat, them without raising them to “human” status, while they are alive and living on this earth.

Gump's Niece, currently unnamed, hanging with the nanny goat

Gump's Niece, currently unnamed, hanging with the nanny goat

We’re still going through the Utah State University Paper that was written on the current state of the industry, and then we’ll talk about the other things that will and have come up for discussion.

To refresh our memories- Argument 1 against horse processing is that we as Americans shouldn’t participate in such a cruel, inhumane act.

Before we get too involved in looking at the second argument, it might be best to read this number first: 4.7 million.

That is the number of horses, according to Wikipedia, that the top 8 horse-meat consuming countries eat yearly.  As has been mentioned, roughly 100,000 horses of the estimated 9.2 million that live in this country go to slaughter yearly.  I have read numbers as high as 150,000. Even at 150,000 we are only providing about 3% of the horse meat that the world consumes.  Unless my math is wrong. And frankly, that was never my strong suite!

Argument 2. The United States should not provide horse meat to satisfy the needs of other countries when Americans do not eat horse meat.

The American Horse Defense Fund , which is a fervent supporter of bills now in the United States Congress that would ban slaughtering horse for meat, declared that “foreign-owned slaughter industry need to understand that Americans will never view horse as dinner.” It’s a ringing statement, but “it’s not an entirely accurate one” (Weil, 2007).

Americans have eaten horse meat at different periods of our history, for example during WWII and post war years (Weil, 2007). Beef and pork were scarce or costly so horse meat appeared or was readily available in butcher shops. In 1951, in Portland, Oregon, horsemeat became an important item on dinner tables with three times as many horse butchers selling three times as much meat. Also, in 1973 with meat prices soaring, a butcher shop in Connecticut converted to horse meat selling 6,000 lbs a day. Into the late 1970s, the Harvard Faculty Club served horse steaks as a regular menu item, only abandoned due to rerouting of traffic flow causing delivering problems (Weil, 2007).*

The United States has been providing horse meat to many different countries for decades. Before 1979 horses were shipped live on boats to Europe, but due to transport concerns and high mortality, this international transport for processing was prohibited (Stull, 2001). The harvesting plants opened in the United States to process animals in country and ship the meat overseas. Four ounces of horse meat contains 20% greater protein than beef (sirloin) with 25% less fat, nearly 20% less sodium, double the iron and 1 mg less cholesterol. Compared to ground beef, horse meat has 55% more protein, 25% less fat, 30% less cholesterol, and 27% less sodium. For many less developed countries and with the BSE problems in beef, horse meat is a better dietary substitute (Ahern et al., 2006). As stated above the groups supporting this ban indicate that the U.S. should not provide meat to other countries that we do not ourselves consume, but the United States harvesting plants provide products from sheep and beef carcasses which are not eaten by Americans and considered delicacies in foreign markets.

All that being said, I don’t know that I’d eat horse for dinner, but if that was all I had, and I were hungry enough I would certainly consider it.  It may not be something we see as acceptable in our culture, NOW, but there are other cultures that view it as perfectly acceptable (In Sweden, it outsells mutton and lamb combined. Italy consumes more horse meat than any other country in the European Community), and I’m not going to tell them how and what they can eat.  Currently there are only 5 states in which it is illegal to consume horse meat: California, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. .If you’re not new to this blog you know that I’m not in favor of vegans/vegetarians telling me how to eat, just as I don’t tell them they should eat meat. And, seriously, who doesn’t love a good steak?

It seems to me, however as a result of the plant closings in 2007 that a few things have happened.

1. We haven’t stopped a single horse from going to slaughter. What we’ve done is give them a longer ride to the processing facility because now they’re going to either Mexico or Canada.  And that longer ride creates additional stress and undue turmoil on them. That’s “humane”, right?  That is a fact and it cannot be denied. No longer can the rancher/farmer/individual, take their own horse to the local sale, spend a few moments with it to say goodbye. Now it has to go 2000 miles or more (if they’re from SD going to Mexico) which is a 3-4 day trailer ride at best.  Used to be it was a day to Illinois.

2. By taking away the rendering plants, sometimes we are prolonging the life of animals that would have been previously sent to those  facilities.  That’s not always a good thing.  As a couple commenters in the previous post pointed out- we should really be more concerned with the horse while it’s alive- this goes back to being PRO-ANIMAL Welfare.  By taking away the option of rendering, we have given owners in a financial bind less options.  We will discuss this later in a separate post.

3. There has now been created a black market for horse meat. In Florida, more specifically Miami- Dade and surrounding counties, where a large population of immigrants reside, I see and hear news story, after news story, after news story, of horse owners who find their *pets* (honestly, I believe that horses are not pets, but livestock; they are too big, powerful and can be danterous- check back later today on my story from yesterday!) rendered in their stalls or pastures.  Horrifying to say the least.  Horses are eaten in many third world countries and even some developed nations such as Japan (where they serve it like sushi). Horse meat is also considered to have healing properties (some Latin cultures believe the meat can cure AIDS) and can be used to remove evil sprits, or be given as a sacrifice if you practice Santeria. There were no stories, such as the above, that I can find prior to the closing of  the US processing facilities. If you know of some, please do, share.

I think we can take many things from this; but I’d like to point out that in the first installment, several of my commenter’s got it right.  And I think that we’ll discuss their comments at another time.

I’m hoping to have a guest poster this week, who’ll talk about the food chain, and how HSUS et al is affecting it. Stay tuned!

And as always, if you can’t be nice, don’t bother.

11 Comments
Filed Under: horse slaughter, horses, peta, politics, ranching

Animal Rights v. Animal Welfare

1 Feb posted by

As part of our on-going discussion about the horse industry, I feel it is important to discuss the differences in animal rights v. animal welfare.

From the Animal Welfare Council Website:

IMG_9642

DX Covergirl, aka, Scarlett

Animal Welfare, as defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association, is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.

  • Animal welfare proponents seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.
  • Animal welfare proponents believe that humans can interact with animals in entertainment, industry, sport and recreation, and industry, but that the interaction should include provisions for the proper care and management for all animals involved.
  • Animal welfare proponents support self-regulation of animal sports, including rodeo, polo, three-day eventing, FFA competitions, horse racing, field trials and endurance riding.
  • Animal welfare groups utilize scientific evidence to base animal care and handling guidelines.

Animal Rights is a philosophical view that animals have rights similar or the same as humans. True animal rights proponents believe that humans do not have the right to use animals at all. Animal rights proponents wish to ban all use of animals by humans.

  • Animal rights proponents support laws and regulations that would prohibit rodeos, horse racing, circuses, hunting, life-saving medical research using animals, raising of livestock for food, petting zoos, marine parks , breeding of purebred pets and any use of animals for industry, entertainment, sport or recreation.
  • Animal rights proponents believe that violence, misinformation and publicity stunts are valid uses of funding donated to their tax-exempt organizations for the purpose of helping animals.
  • Arson, vandalism and assault are common tactics used by underground animal rights groups to further the animal rights cause. Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front, which have been classified as terrorist by the FBI, routinely use criminal activities to further their cause.

Here are some quotes from some of the crazies, yes, I said it, crazies, on the Animal Right’s Front:

“It would be great if all the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow… Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.” Quote from Bruce Friedrich, PETA Spokesperson at the “Animal Rights 2001″ convention.

“We are not especially ‘interested in animals.’  Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are.  We didn’t ‘love’ animals.” –Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990),Preface, p. ii.

“Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation” (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder Washingtonian Aug. 1986) “In the end I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether” (Ingrid Newkirk Newsday, Feb. 21 1988)

From the NAIA Website:

“I’m not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity.” Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA’s founder and president, New Yorker magazine, April 23, 2003

“Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans.” Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York: New York Review of Books, 1990), p. 19.

“Sometimes I think the only effective method of destroying speciesism would be for each uncaring human to be forced to live the life of a cow on a feedlot, or a monkey in a laboratory, or an elephant in the circus, or a bull in a rodeo, or a mink on a fur farm. Then people would be awakened from their soporific states and finally understand the horror that is inflicted on the animal kingdom by the vilest species to ever roam this planet: the human animal! Deep down, I truly hope that oppression, torture and murder return to each uncaring human tenfold! I hope that fathers accidentally shoot their sons on hunting excursions, while carnivores suffer heart attacks that kill them slowly.

“Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled. Every rodeo cowboy and matador should be gored to death, while circus abusers are trampled by elephants and mauled by tigers. And, lastly, may irony shine its esoteric head in the form of animal researchers catching debilitating diseases and painfully withering away because research dollars that could have been used to treat them was wasted on the barbaric, unscientific practice vivisection.” Gary Yourofsky, PeTA Humane Education Lecturer, quoted in the University of Southern Indiana Student Newspaper, The Shield, January 24, 2008

“If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species … Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” “Les U. Knight” (pseudonym), “Voluntary Human Extinction,” Wild Earth, Vol. 1, No. 2, (Summer 1991), p. 72. (to you I say, start with yourself if you feel that way, sir.)

“Humans have grown like a cancer. We’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA’s founder, president and former national director, Readers Digest, June 1990

I could go on and on with more quotes, but I believe y’all have the point by now.  I am pro-animal welfare.  Anyone that makes their living from farming/ranching has no choice but to be that way.  Anyone that truly loves their animals is pro-animal welfare.  That said, it’s unreasonable to expect that no more animals will be abused as long as you have humans beating/raping/abusing other humans.  Additional legisltation won’t help- it’s the same with guns- if someone wants a gun, they’ll do their best to get one regardless of how many gun laws there are on the books.

Healthy, happy animals are the best way for farmers and ranchers to make their livings.  Further, it is my own personal view that morally we are obligated to take the best care we can of God’s creatures.  With that said, I believe that includes hunting, fishing, spaying, neutering etc.  Nothing is worse than seeing Mother Nature at her cruelest, with over-population of deer herds- where sickness and disease reign supreme.

As usual, comments and discussion is welcome so long as you can refrain from name calling.

Happy Monday!

17 Comments
Filed Under: horses, peta, pets, ranching

The State of the Horse Industry: Part 1

27 Jan posted by
My Gump

My Gump

At Utah State University, a group of undergraduate students, a professor, an equine extension agent and the coordinator of the equine extension program gathered their resources, and minds, to write a paper about the state of the industry as it stands now.  It’s a long paper, and in it’s entirety can be found here.

However, I’d like to break it down into sections and discuss it that way. We’ve looked at the numbers in the industry. Now let’s delve deeper.

From Page 1:

In September of 2007 the last horse processing plant in the United States closed its doors. This came about due to pressure from animal rights groups opposing horse harvesting. A state law was passed that forced the Dekalb, Illinois, plant to close and this ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for theSeventh Circuit.

Approximately 100,000 head of horses each year were being sent to U.S. horse processing plants prior to their closure. This is approximately 1 percent of the horse population in the United States (Ahern et al., 2006). The groups that fought for the closing of the processing plants do not want horses processed for human consumption.

The goal of this paper is to look at what effect these closings have had on the horse industry. This paper will analyze four arguments supporting the plant closures and the present environment due to the closure of the plants.

The main statements by the lead groups supporting a ban on horse processing include:

Argument 1. The United States should not participate in such a cruel, inhumane practice (HSUS, 2008).

Argument 2. The United States should not provide horse meat to satisfy other countries’ needs when Americans do not eat horse meat (Weil, 2007).

Argument 3. Horse owners will be responsible and take care of their horses (Horse Talk, 2007).

Argument 4. Owners have other methods to deal with unwanted horses, such as euthanasia, burial, sell the horse, or send to rescue facility (Horse Talk, 2007).

Now let’s take a closer look at each of these arguments in the coming weeks. We’ll start, obviously, with Argument #1.

The United States should not participate in such a cruel, inhumane practice.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) lists two accepted methods of euthanasia for horses: 1) overdose of barbiturate anesthesia, sodium pentobarbital administered with a sedative, 2) physical method of  euthanasia from a gunshot or penetrating captive bolt causing trauma to the cerebral hemisphere and brainstem resulting in an immediate painless and humane death (AVMA, 2007).

U. S. horse harvesting facilities use the captive bolt method of euthanasia. As the AVMA states, “when properly used by skilled personnel with well-maintained equipment, physical methods of euthanasia (captive bolt is a physical means of euthanasia) may result in less fear and anxiety and be more rapid, painless, humane, and practical than other forms of euthanasia” (AVMA, 2007).

Dr. Temple Grandin, PhD, designer of livestock handling facilities and professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University is an expert in methods of handling animals at harvesting facilities. In an interview on the radio program, “Horse Talk,” from Park City, Utah, Dr. Grandin indicated that done correctly euthanasia by captive bolt is second only to chemical euthanasia in discussing humane methods of euthanasia (Grandin, 2007).

Jim Tucker, the manager of the Cavel International horse harvesting plant in DeKalb, Illinois, stated a licensed veterinarian was on site any time an animal was euthanized (J. Tucker, personal communication, November 27, 2007). Dr. Mark Lutschaunig, DVM, Director of the American Veterinary Medical Association Governmental Relations Divisions, indicated the horse processing facilities were highly regulated and a veterinarian was present to record any inhumane treatment (Lutschaunig, 2007). Lutschaunig also stated that the plants employ highly trained personnel utilizing the captive bolt (2007). Dr. Robert Lewis, DVM, American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) Representative for the Legislative Advisory Council, stated the AAEP sent a team to the Texas plants and these equine veterinarians deemed the plants humane and the plants are USDA inspected and inspectors are on site (Lewis, 2007).

The groups behind the ban, instead of helping the animals they set out to help, have created a situation where horses are neglected due to a lack of options. They have also condemned horses to shipment out of the country to foreign plants with less than humane methods of slaughter.

Now I don’t want anyone to get their panties all ruffled about this because, like it or not, processing horses is part of the industry (it’s just moved to Canada and Mexico now).  What bothers me about this argument, is the *humane* part.  I have discussed this before, so if you missed it, you might want to read it, so you’ll understand my thought process.  I will also tell you that I’ve never had to send any of my personal horses to the killers, but we have sent some that the ranch raised- some that were crippled and would never be sound enough to be ridden.  We have sent old horses as well.  And recently we sent some that weren’t old, simply because we needed the grass.  Which brings up another issue to discuss that I believe warrants a separate post/discussion- contrary to popular belief, grass isn’t infinite. And wide open spaces, don’t mean that the space can handle many animals.  As an aside, we do not set out to raise horses specifically for the kill pen, nor do we know anyone that does.  I find that argument to be bogus.  Horses are much more valuable if they’re sound, well-bred and if they have a job (running barrels, on the track, roping, working on the ranch, packing kids and novice riders around, etc).  You’d have to raise hundreds of horses a year to come close to making a living on sending them to slaughter. Another reason that argument is utter bull-shit.

It’s worth noting that prior to the slaughter facilities closing, these equines (the perfectly sound, prime of their life horses) had a value of between $500 and $1000 as NON-KILLER horses.  So in essence the argument could be made that closing the slaughter facilities, has in and of itself, created a larger market for killer horses, because even though I tried to give the horses away, I was unable to do so.  Which begs the question- why were you unable to find a new home for these horses?  Again, that’s something that we’ll discuss at a later time.

In the meantime, if you can be civil and refrain from name calling, let’s discuss this, if not, your comments will be deleted.  As I said earlier I will also keep a running list of questions that I will answer when I have enough to make a post or answer them as it becomes relevant.

Have a good one folks- I’m going to spend my day riding, at least until it rains!

27 Comments
Filed Under: horse slaughter, horses, peta

The State of the Horse Industry: A Series

24 Jan posted by
Some 2009 Foals

Some 2009 Foals

I have decided to do a weekly, to bi-weekly post, at least until I feel like I’ve exhausted my resources, on the current state of the Horse Industry. As an industry professional, I think it’s important that public become educated on policies that they have helped perpetuate either directly or indirectly. Maybe you’re not in the horse industry and find that these policies don’t directly affect you; however, I hope you’d take from this  that the same groups that are responsible for making changes in the Horse Industry (HSUS and PETA) are the same groups that could make owning pets for the rest of you more difficult or costly; they’re often the same groups that can cause an increase in prices in the cost of agricultural goods and services. I hope to show the correlation through these series of posts.

Before we get too involved, I’d like to run through some numbers. In 2005 the American Horse council did a study on the Industry.  The numbers are big, interesting, and are the best place to start this conversation.

You can buy the study in its entirety here but we’ll highlight most of the relevant points:

  • There are 9.2 million horses in the United States.
  • 4.6 millions Americans are involved in the industry as horse owners, service providers, employees and volunteers.  Tens of millions more participate as spectators.
  • 2 million people own horses.
  • The horse industry has a direct economic effect on the US of $39 billion annually.
  • The industry has a $102 billion impact on the US economy when the mulitplier effect of spending by industry suppliers and employees is taken into account.  Including off-site spending of spectators would result in an even higher figure.
  • The industry directly provides 460,000 full- time equivalent (FTE) jobs. (And as someone who has made a living working in the industry I can tell you, that there is no 40 hour work week- to do it right you plan to work 60-80 hours a week. That includes help, not just the trainers).
  • Spending by suppliers and employees generates additional jobs for a total employment impact of 1.4 million FTE jobs.
  • The horse industry pays $1.9 billion in taxes to all levels of government.
  • Approximately 34% of horse owners have a household income of less than $50,000 and
  • 28% have an annual income of over $100,000. 46% of horse owners have an income of between $25,000 to $75,000.
  • Over 70% of horse owners live in communities of 50,000 or less.
  • There are horses in every state. Forty-five states have at least 20,000 horses each.

Of the 9.2 million horses used in the United States the numbers are as follows:

  • Racing- 844,531
  • Showing- 2,718,954
  • Recreation- 3,906,923
  • Other- 1,752,439

“Other” includes farm and ranch work, rodeo, carriage horses, polo, police work, informal competitions, etc.

The economic impact of the industry is huge:

The study documents the economic impact of the industry in terms of jobs and contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It is greater than the motion picture services, railroad transportation, and some types of manufacturing. It is only slightly smaller than the apparel and other textile manufacturing industries.

The study’s results show that the industry directly produces goods and services of $38.8 billion and has a total impact of $101.5 billion on US GDP.

It is strong in each activity with racing, showing and recreation each contributing between $10.5 and $12 billion to the total value of goods and services produced by the industry.

Now that we have some idea how big the industry is we’ll be better ready to delve into the subject later this week. If you have questions, please leave them in the comments section and I’ll compile a list of them to answer as need be.


Related Posts with Thumbnails
8 Comments
Filed Under: horses, peta, politics, ranching
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes