When they no longer want their horses or can't take care of them, many horse owners try to find new homes for them. But some of the animals end up being slaughtered, horse people say.
Featured Video
Advertisement
"Everybody looks for a way to make things work. Unfortunately the answers don't fit,” said R.D. Logan, executive director of the Oklahoma Thoroughbred Association. "It is a little sensitive area for horsemen.”
Logan said his organization doesn't condone slaughter or the selling of horses for slaughter. The association was pleased about a recent congressional action that resulted in the closing of the last few horse slaughterhouses in America. Horse protection proponents say horses now are simply shipped to Mexico and Canada for slaughter.
The association has made donations to horse retirement organizations, Logan said. But, he said, the problem of what to do with the large number of unwanted horses is similar to the problem of household pets. "You can become oversaturated with horses,” Logan said.
"We have an overabundance of cats and dogs,” he said. "People hate to see them go to a shelter where they're euthanized, but it's an unfortunate fact that humans do the things we do with animals. Horses are no different.
"It's a side of horses and animals that most people don't like to think about.”
Calvin White, an Ada veterinarian and president of the Oklahoma Quarter Horse Association, agrees the glut of unwanted horses is a problem. With the slumping economy and the rising cost of feed, owners who can't afford to care for their animals may be leaving them to starve, he said.
"There's projected to be 100,000 head of horses a year that are not going to have a home,” he said. "Many turn them out. They can't feed them.”
The solution, White said, would be the return of slaughterhouses to America.
That way, he said, government regulators could assure the animals were humanely handled and euthanized before slaughter.
Horses at one time were an agriculture product, he said. With slaughter plants paying 50 cents a pound, a 1,000-pound animal had a base value of $500.
Now, he said, horses no longer have a base value because it's not legal to transport them out of the country for slaughter.
Chris Berry, president and founder of the Equine Protection Network, said that's not correct. California is the only state that prohibits transport of horses for slaughter, she said. She said Illinois, Texas and Oklahoma effectively ban slaughter in their states. Otherwise, she said, no state bans transport of horses for slaughter. Federal law regulates transport of horses for slaughter, she said, and federal legislation banning such transport is being considered.
Berry, a longtime horse owner in Friedensburg, Pa., said the humane solution is to require owners to euthanize their unwanted horses. She opposes the sale of horse meat for human consumption.
"It's like telling me to eat my dog or my cat,” she said. "What if we opened the back door of shelters and started selling them to countries that ate dogs and cats?”
Many people in the horse industry are aware that many unwanted horses are slaughtered, she said. "Anyone who buys and sells horses knows this.”
The issue boils down to personal responsibility of horse owners, said Berry, who runs a boarding facility for retired horses that charges owners $365 to $535 a month. Those who don't want their horses and can't find homes for them should euthanize them, she said. White said he charges $100 to euthanize a horse. Of course, that also means an owner receives no sale price.
"It's definitely about money,” Berry said. "It's all about money.”
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Horses are not raised nor regulated as food animals in the US. They routinely receive medications that are banned from food animals such as Phenybutazone or "bute", the aspirin of the horse world. In fact, over 70% of legal horse medications are either illegal in food animals or have never been tested for human consumption and are simply labeled, “Not intended for use in horses intended for food.” If you’ve read any of the articles about US horse racing lately, you know how many drugs are in their systems. Steroids, lasix, etc. ... With the slaughter houses own slogan, “Seven days from stable to table” you can see that no withdrawal times are being observed (note: there is no acceptable withdrawal time for bute and many other horse medications).
Let's look at one example of medication that is routinely given to horses but is absolutely illegal (ZERO tolerance) in food animals according to US, Canadian and European Union laws: Phenylbutazone, "bute" has been determined to be a carcinogen to humans by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). Phenylbutazone is also known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and hemotoxic effects in humans. It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths.
Are the illegal substances found in US slaughter horses?
Absolutely. According to the USDA’s Red Book, of the 66,183 horses slaughtered in 2004, 6.6% (4,268.08) horses were in violation for “bute” and 13.3% (8,802.34) were in violation of Penicillin. Of the 94,037 horses slaughtered in 2005, 11.1% (10,344.07) horses were in violation for “bute” and 25% (23,509.25) were in violation of Penicillin. Only small samples of 15 horses and 8 horses, respectively, were even tested. You can bet the other horses that were not tested got the USDA stamp of approval and were sent overseas, even though it is clearly illegal according to our own food laws and the laws of the European Union. This does not account for the vast majority of drugs that horses receive, as they are not required to test for those medications. The Red Book does not reflect any residue data for slaughter horses in 2006, which is the year that the horse slaughter industry paid the USDA inspectors themselves … Hmmmm. This to me the medication issue is the smoking gun of why US horses should not and cannot be slaughtered for human consumption -- the meat is unsafe! Why would the USDA jeapardize it's stamp of approval in this manner? It gives me no confidence in them, and as you see by the many countries banning/protesting US beef, they also don't believe in the the USDA's stamp of approval. And how about the farmers that raise food animals that do abide by medication laws. How is this possibly acceptable to them that horses do not? I doubt they know about it or they would be outraged too.
Great Britain, another country that is strongly opposed to horse slaughter, has had to implement a complex and costly "passport" system for this very same medication reason that I talk about above for the 8-10k British horses that are slaughtered for EU human consumption each year. Every single British horse, whether going to slaughter or not, has to have a passport to keep track of the medications the horse has received in its lifetime so that illegal substances do not enter the human food chain. On top of that, all of the EU countries will now require a microchip in every horse to help identify them along with their passport. Does the US really want to have this implemented too just so 1% of American horses can be slaughtered for meat by foreign companies for foreign markets? Or perhaps we'd rather lose over 70% of our currently legal horse medications so that the meat can be deemed safe -- except that that solution would jeapardize the health of the 99% of 9 million US horses that are not slaughtered.
I am totally confused by the statements of Dr. White. Let me see if I understand him correctly. He contends we have 100,000 excess horses and they must be gotten rid of. Am I right so far? He suggests that they be euthanized before slaughtering, correct? Now there is where I get lost. Euthanized means making something DEAD; if the goal is to kill these horses rather then letting them starve, what is the slaughtering part all about if they are already dead and no longer a burden? WAIT.....now I get it. Euthanize them then cut them up and sell their meat, THAT meaning of slaughter: butchering!! So it's not about getting rid of excess horses to prevent them from being starved; it's about making money from their dead bodies, as Ms. Berry points out! Now I see the agenda.
This educated man needs to do some reading before he speaks because his knowledge is lacking. It is still perfectly legal to send horses to slaughter; only the act of slaughtering is banned and in a mere 3 states, as Ms. Berry also points out. Right now, as it stands, anyone in any of the other 47 states can attempt to open a horse slaughterhouse. The AHSPA will stop the transport to slaughter both nationally and internationally. A quick reading of the bill makes that abundantly clear. No other transport is affected, as is often claimed by pro-slaughter. One of their famous scare tactics, promulgated in large part by the American Quarterhorse Association and their cohorts, the american Veterinary Medical Association.
As a spokesman for the Quarterhorse Association, I suspect Dr. White has a proposal that he has not disclosed. Since horses can only be humanely euthanized by chemicals, captive bolt gun (and that is conditionally acceptable) or gunshot, and since the meat of chemically euthanized horses cannot be eaten, he would like to see American slaughterhouses returned to operation using the gunshot method. Correct, Dr. White? I'm no MENSA member but it is not difficult to draw that conclusion when you know something about the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 and the AVMA/AAEP guidelines for acceptable methods of slaughter. But those of us on the anti-slaughter side know many things that have not been mentioned in your statements designed to convince people that slaughter is needed and a good alternative, like the fact that the USDA has not and never will regulate horse slaughter effectively; they won't regulate the slaughter of the cattle that feed our families by preventing downer cows from coming into the food supply. We know that speed to maximize profit is the prime consideration of the slaughterhouses and that they hire the cheapest labor they can find to carry out the killing, not the highly trained personnel required under the law to shoot the horses properly and safely. ONE SHOT is mandated. But the people who sell the meat don't want the horse dead of that gunshot either; that's why the CBG is the method of choice. They want the animal merely stunned; those adrenal glands still have to be functioning, a physiological reaction to sheer terror and intense pain; it keeps the meat sweeter, and makes for a better product. Thus, highest possible profit.
So you see, Dr. White, you aren't talking to a group of people who know nothing about horse slaughter and will defer to a vet's opinion just because he or she is a vet. We know that 70% of the horses slaughtered for their meat are quarterhorses, products of the irresponsible breeding practices of some members of your association. We know that 94% of the slaughtered horses are young, healthy and sound, not the old, lame and ill. We know that it is illegal to transport foals less than 6 months of age, pregnant mares and horses that cannot bear weight on all four legs, blind horses or those otherwise disabled even though thy are transported to slaughter all the time. We know a lot and we will not be fooled by your disingenuous statements that this is all about helping the horses. Nor will we remain silent while you attempt to make people believe that slaughter is in any way acceptable.
If you want to help the horse owners out of their dilemma, how about you donate your services and euthanize for free or for your costs only? Don't point out the expense as a justification for inhumane slaughter if you aren't willing to help folks avoid or minimize that expense, if, as you seem to want us to believe, your motive is to prevent the horses from suffering. And tough luck if owners don't realize any profit from the death of their horses. No one paid me anything when my dog had to be euthanized. It cost me $400 so your charge for a horse is a bargain.
By the way, animal starvation, to point out the obvious, is a crime; are you reporting the people you claim to know are doing that? If not, why not?
The national horse population increased from 3 million to 3.6 million between 1997 and 2002. Figures from the most recent census in 2007 are not yet available. Oklahoma's estimated horse population of 150,100 ranks the state second in the nation.
•Texas: 372,300
•Oklahoma: 150,100
•Kentucky: 149,500
•Tennessee: 148,700
•Missouri: 141,400
•Ohio: 134,400
•California: 132,000
•Pennsylvania: 113,400
•Colorado: 107,100
•Michigan: 104,900
Source: US Department of Agriculture, 2002 figures
Related to this story
Articles
Gift horses may be going to slaughter Sometimes,... 07/20/2008 Tricky Jazz was a big beauty of a thoroughbred, Patti Deiter said. "His main problem — he was slow.” So the Tuttle horse breeder and racing enthusiast...
Bidders find good bets at auction 07/20/2008 Delinda Cantrell peered through the iron bars of several auction house stalls Saturday, studying many of the 40 horses confiscated by Oklahoma authorities...
2
Featured Video
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
Let's look at one example of medication that is routinely given to horses but is absolutely illegal (ZERO tolerance) in food animals according to US, Canadian and European Union laws: Phenylbutazone, "bute" has been determined to be a carcinogen to humans by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). Phenylbutazone is also known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and hemotoxic effects in humans. It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths.
Are the illegal substances found in US slaughter horses?
Absolutely. According to the USDA’s Red Book, of the 66,183 horses slaughtered in 2004, 6.6% (4,268.08) horses were in violation for “bute” and 13.3% (8,802.34) were in violation of Penicillin. Of the 94,037 horses slaughtered in 2005, 11.1% (10,344.07) horses were in violation for “bute” and 25% (23,509.25) were in violation of Penicillin. Only small samples of 15 horses and 8 horses, respectively, were even tested. You can bet the other horses that were not tested got the USDA stamp of approval and were sent overseas, even though it is clearly illegal according to our own food laws and the laws of the European Union. This does not account for the vast majority of drugs that horses receive, as they are not required to test for those medications. The Red Book does not reflect any residue data for slaughter horses in 2006, which is the year that the horse slaughter industry paid the USDA inspectors themselves … Hmmmm. This to me the medication issue is the smoking gun of why US horses should not and cannot be slaughtered for human consumption -- the meat is unsafe! Why would the USDA jeapardize it's stamp of approval in this manner? It gives me no confidence in them, and as you see by the many countries banning/protesting US beef, they also don't believe in the the USDA's stamp of approval. And how about the farmers that raise food animals that do abide by medication laws. How is this possibly acceptable to them that horses do not? I doubt they know about it or they would be outraged too.
Great Britain, another country that is strongly opposed to horse slaughter, has had to implement a complex and costly "passport" system for this very same medication reason that I talk about above for the 8-10k British horses that are slaughtered for EU human consumption each year. Every single British horse, whether going to slaughter or not, has to have a passport to keep track of the medications the horse has received in its lifetime so that illegal substances do not enter the human food chain. On top of that, all of the EU countries will now require a microchip in every horse to help identify them along with their passport. Does the US really want to have this implemented too just so 1% of American horses can be slaughtered for meat by foreign companies for foreign markets? Or perhaps we'd rather lose over 70% of our currently legal horse medications so that the meat can be deemed safe -- except that that solution would jeapardize the health of the 99% of 9 million US horses that are not slaughtered.
This educated man needs to do some reading before he speaks because his knowledge is lacking. It is still perfectly legal to send horses to slaughter; only the act of slaughtering is banned and in a mere 3 states, as Ms. Berry also points out. Right now, as it stands, anyone in any of the other 47 states can attempt to open a horse slaughterhouse. The AHSPA will stop the transport to slaughter both nationally and internationally. A quick reading of the bill makes that abundantly clear. No other transport is affected, as is often claimed by pro-slaughter. One of their famous scare tactics, promulgated in large part by the American Quarterhorse Association and their cohorts, the american Veterinary Medical Association.
As a spokesman for the Quarterhorse Association, I suspect Dr. White has a proposal that he has not disclosed. Since horses can only be humanely euthanized by chemicals, captive bolt gun (and that is conditionally acceptable) or gunshot, and since the meat of chemically euthanized horses cannot be eaten, he would like to see American slaughterhouses returned to operation using the gunshot method. Correct, Dr. White? I'm no MENSA member but it is not difficult to draw that conclusion when you know something about the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 and the AVMA/AAEP guidelines for acceptable methods of slaughter. But those of us on the anti-slaughter side know many things that have not been mentioned in your statements designed to convince people that slaughter is needed and a good alternative, like the fact that the USDA has not and never will regulate horse slaughter effectively; they won't regulate the slaughter of the cattle that feed our families by preventing downer cows from coming into the food supply. We know that speed to maximize profit is the prime consideration of the slaughterhouses and that they hire the cheapest labor they can find to carry out the killing, not the highly trained personnel required under the law to shoot the horses properly and safely. ONE SHOT is mandated. But the people who sell the meat don't want the horse dead of that gunshot either; that's why the CBG is the method of choice. They want the animal merely stunned; those adrenal glands still have to be functioning, a physiological reaction to sheer terror and intense pain; it keeps the meat sweeter, and makes for a better product. Thus, highest possible profit.
So you see, Dr. White, you aren't talking to a group of people who know nothing about horse slaughter and will defer to a vet's opinion just because he or she is a vet. We know that 70% of the horses slaughtered for their meat are quarterhorses, products of the irresponsible breeding practices of some members of your association. We know that 94% of the slaughtered horses are young, healthy and sound, not the old, lame and ill. We know that it is illegal to transport foals less than 6 months of age, pregnant mares and horses that cannot bear weight on all four legs, blind horses or those otherwise disabled even though thy are transported to slaughter all the time. We know a lot and we will not be fooled by your disingenuous statements that this is all about helping the horses. Nor will we remain silent while you attempt to make people believe that slaughter is in any way acceptable.
If you want to help the horse owners out of their dilemma, how about you donate your services and euthanize for free or for your costs only? Don't point out the expense as a justification for inhumane slaughter if you aren't willing to help folks avoid or minimize that expense, if, as you seem to want us to believe, your motive is to prevent the horses from suffering. And tough luck if owners don't realize any profit from the death of their horses. No one paid me anything when my dog had to be euthanized. It cost me $400 so your charge for a horse is a bargain.
By the way, animal starvation, to point out the obvious, is a crime; are you reporting the people you claim to know are doing that? If not, why not?