Horses may be fully conscious at the start of the slaughter process, during which they are hung by a hind leg, their throat slit, and body butchered. Death, the final betrayal of these noble animals, is protracted and excruciating. Wild horses are also at risk of being slaughtered, particularly since a backdoor congressional rider engineered by Senator Conrad Burns R—MT gutted a number of the protections afforded by the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of A Office of Inspector General investigation found that the BLM had sold almost 1, wild horses to a single kill buyer.
You can also click here for a list of horse organizations, rescues, and industry leaders that oppose horse slaughter and support efforts to ban the practice. In , however, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that it was illegal for horse slaughterhouses to pay the USDA for their own horse meat inspections, closing this loophole. Horse Slaughter. Until a ban is in place, every American horse is at risk of meeting this fate.
The bill would prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption in the United States and ban their export abroad for that purpose—but we need your help to ensure Congress passes this important legislation. End Horse Slaughter. Horse Slaughter. The Issue. Horse Slaughter Is Not Euthanasia. Horse Slaughter Abroad Though exports have been dropping in recent years, tens of thousands of American equines continue to be shipped to slaughter across our borders annually.
The Future Until a ban is in place, every American horse is at risk of meeting this fate. September 15, That said, there is little doubt that the USDA is underfunded and may not have the resources to fully enforce the regulations. In addition, remember that the USDA has no regulatory jurisdiction over the transport of horses designated for other uses regardless of whether or not those designations are legitimate or fraudulent.
Q: As written, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act will ban the interstate transportation of horses for slaughter. Won't that prevent them from being transported to other countries for slaughter?
A: No, it will not. It will be difficult to enforce the law, and there is nothing to stop slaughter house buyers and dealers from describing horses as "riding," "breeding," or "pleasure" horses when they are transported. This may already be happening, based on the marked increase in the number of horses transported to Mexico for declared reasons other than slaughter.
Once these horses cross the border, there will be no way to determine whether they find homes or are sold for slaughter. Q: If a federal ban on horse slaughter is passed, what will happen to the horses?
A: The fact that we do not know, and concerns about what could happen, is why the AVMA cannot in good conscience support a federal ban on horse slaughter without ensuring protection for the horses affected i. Removing slaughter as a humane option will leave many horses with nowhere to go and no one to care for them. There will likely be an acute rise in abuse, neglect, and abandonments with corresponding negative impacts on horse welfare.
As discussed previously, horse rescues and sanctuaries are already at or near capacity and local officials commonly lack authority and resources to enforce penalties against neglectful or cruel horse owners.
And, as mentioned previously, the ban will likely not be fully effective since some horses will still be transported across borders under false pretenses e. A significant concern with transporting horses across the borders for reasons other than slaughter is long-distance travel that cannot be monitored by USDA for humaneness under their current regulatory authority.
Catching violators and enforcing the law would be nearly impossible. Transport of horses to slaughter within the United States was regulated while horse slaughter was permitted in this country, but regulatory authority ends when horses cross the border into another country.
They might be loaded in numbers that exceed trailer capacity, transported longer distances, deprived of food or water, and killed using inhumane methods. Q: Is it true that veterinarians will benefit financially from the reopening of horse slaughter houses, if they reopen? These veterinarians may be assigned to slaughterhouses processing horses to protect animal welfare and food safety.
These veterinarians would draw a salary comparable to other FSIS positions at other types of slaughterhouses. Q: The AVMA said that more horses are being neglected or abused since the slaughterhouses closed down. What evidence do you have to support that?
A: We've already provided evidence that more and more horses are being transported to other countries and slaughtered. Making such transport illegal will not eliminate it altogether. This means longer rides for these horses and an increased potential for inhumane treatment after they've crossed our borders. There have been an increasing number of media reports of horse neglect and abandonment.
The GAO report further supported these concerns. Additionally a University of California-Davis survey found There are many factors at play in these situations. Droughts have caused hay prices to soar, and more and more people are having trouble finding affordable hay for their horses. Hay prices have at least doubled in many areas of the country.
As more unwanted horses remain in the horse population, hay shortages and high costs will increase the cost of care and further deplete resources.
It will cost more to care for these horses, and many rescue facilities are already financially strapped. This adds to the AVMA's concern that these animals may be more likely to be abandoned or neglected. Q: California banned horse slaughter in , and I was told that animal abuse and neglect didn't go up. Doesn't that mean a federal law would be effective? A: In , California banned the possession, transfer, receipt, or holding of any horse, pony, burro, or mule with the intent to have it slaughtered for human consumption.
Although the number of reported horse thefts declined following passage of the law, the percentage of animals recovered after theft also declined. Reports of animal abuse or neglect did not increase. However, there has been no investigation of the number of horses that may have been shipped out of the state under false pretense and sent to slaughter.
The number of horses slaughtered in the United States declined from to before passage of the California law , and declined further from to and from to , but then increased. It does not appear that passage of the California law had a substantial, long-term impact on the number of horses slaughtered nationwide; it is likely that horses were illegally transported out of California, or that horses from other areas filled any void created by the law. This is very similar to the situation recently reported in Mexico.
California banned the practice, so the horses were likely shipped out of state before they were sold for slaughter. Now that there are no horse slaughterhouses operating in the United States, horses are being shipped to other countries to get around the process and the laws. While it's difficult to demonstrate a direct link between the cessation of slaughter and incidents of abuse and neglect, information compiled by the GAO in the production of its report indicated a rise in horse abuse, neglect and abandonments since the cessation of slaughter in the United States.
Unfortunately, this information is confounding by the poor economy and high hay prices. The real, nationwide effect of the elimination of horse slaughter on the frequency of horse abuse or neglect remains to be seen. Q: What did the GAO find? Q: What did the GAO report recommend? A: Summarily, the GAO report recommended that Congress either facilitate the resumption of domestic horse slaughter or ban it altogether including transport to other countries for slaughter.
The report also made recommendations to the USDA to 1 strengthen the regulations and protecting horses during transport to slaughter; 2 increase the enforcement of slaughter transport regulations; 3 revisit the formal agreement with Canadian authorities; and 4 seek a formal agreement with Mexican authorities. Q: I heard that the GAO report was "debunked" by an economist. A: Absolutely not. The GAO consulted with economists, including agricultural economists, to review their analytical model; as stated in the report, these experts "generally found the model specifications and results credible.
Several offered specific technical comments related to the presentation of the model results, which we incorporated, as appropriate. What some groups refer to as "debunking" the report is actually a position statement from the Equine Welfare Alliance and the Animal Law Coalition, two groups that oppose equine slaughter. Their position statement questions the data and statements of the GAO and alleges a conspiracy, including a "Congressional cover-up. It may be that the two groups view the GAO report as a "propaganda tool" because the GAO's report does not support their viewpoint.
The AVMA believes the GAO, a nonpartisan body, took a thorough and balanced look at the impact of the cessation of domestic horse slaughter on the welfare of horses, and made important recommendations that should be heeded by Congress and the governmental agencies involved in this issue.
The unwanted horse issue is much larger and more complex than what is currently being argued in Congress. A: We are extremely concerned about the welfare of unwanted horses and the reports we're seeing and hearing of increasing numbers of horses being abandoned, abused, and neglected.
There are more horses than there are homes for them, and we need solutions. To develop short- and long-term solutions that are viable and sustainable, cooperation among a variety of groups will be necessary. We're confident that if breeders, owners, horse rescuers, and other stakeholders can collaborate and cooperate, this welfare problem can be effectively addressed. A: Until suitable short- and long-term solutions to address the welfare issues associated with unwanted horses are in place, we believe that none of the options for dealing with unwanted horses — including slaughter — should be eliminated.
We would prefer to see horse slaughter cease in the U. Note that the AVMA does not equate horse slaughter with euthanasia. All must be conducted as humanely as possible, but the circumstances surrounding them and the desired outcomes are sufficiently different that the Panel believes they need to be considered separately. Accordingly, during the next couple of years, the AVMA will be producing separate guidance documents on depopulation and humane slaughter to supplement its guidelines on euthanasia.
Q: Why do you say eliminating slaughter is not the answer? A: Until we have better, more viable short- and long-term solutions in place to address unwanted horses, we don't believe that any of the existing options should be eliminated. Simply put, there will be no supply of horses for slaughter if there are no unwanted horses — or, at least, not enough unwanted horses to justify the existence of slaughter auctions, suppliers and facilities.
The key to solving the problem doesn't lie solely in eliminating, or maintaining, slaughter — it lies in responsible horse ownership and breeding. If everyone who purchased or bred a horse accepted responsibility for caring for that horse throughout its entire life, or finding another person to do so if the original owner is unwilling or unable, there would be no more unwanted horses. Breeders, horse organizations, and horse owners should all be aware of the possible fates of unwanted horses, and should make a conscious effort to educate themselves and the public about responsible horse ownership and take proactive steps to ensure that they aren't contributing to the problem.
Yet those born into the meat trade are put in boxes and shipped across the ocean without food or water on a long, one-way flight to their unceremonious deaths. Then they are eaten by the wealthy. Often three or four horses are crammed into crates that barely offer enough room for one. About 40, horses have been shipped to slaughter from Canada since Live export horse shipments are monitored by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Whistle-blowers have exposed basic welfare failures — horses being kept on tarmacs in brutally cold temperatures , horses arriving overseas already dead or dying and horses falling and stepping on each other in the over-crowded crates. Most of these animals come from one of a few facilities that breed horses specifically to become meat, or from the pregnant mare urine industry, where the females are repeatedly impregnated so their urine can be collected to make hormone replacements for women, even though synthetic alternatives exist.
The foals are separated from their mothers and most are deemed disposable. Pregnant mare urine production parallels the dairy industry in this way.
Canada has appallingly low standards for slaughter-bound animals of all kinds. Cows, goats and sheep can be shipped for 36 hours without food, water or rest.
0コメント