E-mail
Print
COLUMBIA - Rosy Erganian, a therapeutic riding instructor and horse owner from Rocheport, has a barn full of horses that are unwanted by their previous owners.
A couple of these horses were likely headed to slaughter had Erganian not bought them at an auction frequented by slaughter buyers. And yet, she said she thinks that a horse going to slaughter has a better fate than the unknown future many now face.
Tom Lenz will speak about unwanted horses at 6 p.m. Monday at the Animal Science Research Center on the MU campus. The talk will take place in room S147 of the center, located on East Campus Drive.
Options if you can no longer take care of your horse
• Sell your horse
- - Second career would be selling your horse to someone who would use the horse for showing or recreation.
- Pasture mate
• Lease your horse
- Partial or full lease
• Donate your horse to a worthy organization
- Therapeutic riding program
- Police department
- Equine department of a college or university
- Horse Rescue Group
- Horse retirement facility
- Veterinary clinic
• Have your horse euthanized by a licensed veterinarian
Information from the Unwanted Horse Coalition Web site. For more information go to: unwantedhorsecoalition.org
Horse Facts Nationally
• There are 9.2 million horses in the U.S.
• 4.6 million Americans are involved in the industry as horse owners, service providers, employees or volunteers.
• 2 million people own horses
• The horse industry has a direct economic effect on the U.S. of $39 billion annually.
Horse Facts in Missouri:
• The Missouri horse industry produces goods and services valued at $718 million
• 125,100 Missourians are involved in the industry as horse owners, service providers, employees or volunteers.
• There are 281,000 horses in Missouri.
Information from the American Horse Council Web site.
- It costs at least $1,825 to keep a horse per year, according to the American Association of Equine Practitioners. That’s not including hoof care, veterinary and health care bills. The total cost of keeping a horse can easily amount to $5,000 yearly.
"It's a lot less humane to let a horse starve all winter than to take them to slaughter," Erganian said. "Slaughter is a necessary component of our industry, and we should establish rules to let horses going to slaughter be handled in a humane way."
This year is even scarier, she said, because the prices of hay and grain are so high. A lot of horses will be in trouble this winter because of the feed costs, the poor economy and limited places to take a horse an owner can no longer feed.
The troubling question of what to do with an unwanted horse has been exacerbated, some say, by a bill proposed in Congress that would have ended horse slaughter for human consumption. The bill didn't pass, but it prompted the only two states with slaughter plants, Illinois and Texas, to ban horse slaughter. Missouri has not banned horse slaughter in the state, but no facilities currently exist. The effect of those bans has rippled through the horse industry.
Neglected and abused
Informal research has shown that horse rescue facilities are full from the overwhelming number of unwanted horses, said Tom Lenz, a veterinarian and chairman for the Unwanted Horse Coalition. The Unwanted Horse Coalition is an organization of breed registries, rescue facilities and equine disciplines that are dedicated to decreasing the number of unwanted horses. Lenz said he thinks horses may be neglected and abused more often as a result of the limited number of options for horse owners that need a place to take their horse. He points out that there has been a drastic increase in the number of horses being hauled to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.
This trend is likely to accelerate because the prices of feed and fuel are up and are expected to continue to climb through the winter. Nearly all aspects of the equine industry are suffering financially, Lenz said.
"There is definitely a higher volume of unwanted horses and no place for them to go," said Sharon Marohl, president of the Missouri Equine Council. "The Unwanted Horse Coalition was created under the American Horse Council to help deal with this problem nationwide."
No bottom point
The unwanted horse problem has come about largely because there is no longer a base price for a horse, Marohl said. The base price is the amount for which a horse could be bought for slaughter, the price per pound. It used to be if the horse was worth 50 cents a pound, that was its base price, and if you didn't want your horse to go to slaughter, you would price your horse above that price, she said. That base price no longer exists with the shutdown of the plants in Illinois and Texas.
"We are now seeing more ads for free horses," Marohl said. "People have given up trying to sell them and are now trying to give them away. I'm afraid we've only seen the tip of the iceberg right now. It takes a 1,200-pound horse a long time to starve to death. So, you can say what you want about slaughter, but it's certainly quicker than starving to death."
The Missouri Equine Council has maintained a policy on equine welfare, Marohl said.
"We're in favor of humane, regulated slaughter," Marohl said.
The Humane Society of the United States has been promoting antislaughter legislation.
"We work so hard on this issue because it's very inhumane and traumatic for the horses," said Stacy Segal, equine protection specialist for the society. "There is no way to humanely slaughter a horse."
The method is the same as for cattle, called captive bolt, which instantly renders the horses brain-dead by a penetrating rod, Lenz said. The three methods that are deemed acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association's expert panel on euthanasia are captive bolt, gunshot and overdose of injectable barbiturates.
More humane
But many veterinarians say the process was humane from the beginning. Horse slaughter plants were required to adhere to the American Veterinary Medial Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners approved method. The U.S. Department of Agriculture had also approved this method, Lenz said.
"Regardless of what the animal rights people say, the horses in the U.S. were slaughtered in a humane way," said Nat Messer, professor of veterinary medicine and surgery at MU. "Now, we've made it so the unwanted horses have to be exported for slaughter, which is much more inhumane than anything that happened in the U.S."
If the unwanted horses aren't exported for slaughter, they are sent to a rescue facility. Many of these rescue facilities are full to capacity.
"We are overwhelmed with phone calls for people that can't take care of their horses anymore, so we've started an adoption program," said Rhonda Stephens, founder and director of the Shannon Foundation in St. Clair.
Joining the rescue
In the last couple of months, Sandy Whitaker from Willow Springs has received several calls from people out of state with up to 30 horses that needed homes. Whitaker is new to rescuing horses. After looking at a couple of Web sites, she was shocked to see how many people wanted to get rid of their horses. She filled out an application and was approved to take some horses, but she said she can't afford to take more than the seven she planned to take.
Part of the problem is that it costs at least $1,825 to keep a horse per year, according to the American Association of Equine Practitioners. That's not including hoof care, veterinary and health care bills. The total cost of keeping a horse easily mount to $5,000 yearly.
A major consideration in the expense of keeping a horse is the cost of hay, grain and fuel, which makes the situation worse.
"The plants being closed and the price of hay, grain and diesel fuels have created a perfect storm for the horse industry, resulting in the decrease of the horses' value and an excess of unwanted horses," Lenz said. The price of feed, hay and diesel fuel is as important as the shattered pricing structure for horses, said Lenz, who is an MU graduate and a horse owner.
But the expense of owning a horse, as variable as it may be, is a challenge any horse owner should be prepared to handle, Segal said. Right now, the economy is affecting horse owners. The Humane Society encourages horse owners to think ahead about their horses, she said.
Choices have to be made
Kent Haden, vice president of livestock operations for MFA Incorporated and a horse owner, said he became a veterinarian because he loves horses. He's had to put a lot of excellent horses down, and he doesn't like slaughter, he said. But, there are mean horses, neglected horses and crippled horses. With the prices of gas and feed up, choices have to be made. Slaughter isn't the ideal choice, but it has to be weighed against other alternatives, Haden said.
Segal said there are good and bad choices. Euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian is the Humane Society-approved method for horses that have no place to go and all other options have been exhausted.
But, having a veterinarian euthanize a horse can be costly. The lowest rate for euthanasia is $66, and that's not including the cost of the house call by the veterinarian or the cost of disposal, according to the American Association of Equine Practitioners.
A 2007 estimate by the association showed that there are about 170,000 documented unwanted horses in the U.S. each year, including horses slaughtered in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, unadoptable wild horses and others.
"If all unwanted horses are euthanized, where do we put 100,000 bodies?" Messer said. "It's not environmentally friendly."
After a horse is euthanized, disposal options are limited. A horse can be buried, rendered or incinerated. Depending on how far away dirt work or land-clearing companies are, burial prices can reach $100 to $200, and horse owners within city limits often have limitations, according to Habitat for Horses. The price range for rendering, which is the processing of horse meat to be used as feed for other animals in zoos, for instance, is between $75 and $250. The price range for incineration is $2,000, according to the American Association of Equine Practitioners.
A solution needs to be found to the growing problem, and almost everyone has an opinion.
"Part of the problem is the public's perception of horses and how they are managed," Lenz said. "Because the average American is around three generations removed from the farm, they don't understand equine care."
Comments
It is shameful that someone who claims to be a therapeutic riding instructor would find slaughtering horses acceptable.
This article is full of false and misleading statements. Rosy says her barn is 'full of unwanted horses' but then states that only two of the horses MIGHT have been slaughter-bound. Apparently the pro-slaughter groups have decided to classify all horses being donated to riding program or put up for sale as unwanted.
Tom Lenz of the Unwanted Horse Coalition, an organization first formed by those closest to the Cavel plant, is clueless. His so-called research is nothing more than his personal opinion that has been bought by pro-slaughter groups. While more horses are being sent out of the country to be slaughtered; overall, the 2008 numbers are not significantly different from prior years. Lenz goes on to say he ‘thinks’ more horses are being starved, neglected, etc due to the closure of the US plants but again, facts provided by law enforcement and animal control officers do not support his ‘thinking’.
Further, Lenz should actually read the information on the AVMA’s website. The AVMA clearly states that a PENETRATING captive bolt gun should only be used on properly restrained equines. All three US plants used a NON-penetrating bolt gun without any restraint.
Marohl apparently wants readers to believe that not knowing what the kill buyers will pay is a reason that horses end up at slaughter plants. Maybe she should attend an auction to get an understanding of the process. No one forces owners to settle for a specific price. Owners still have the right to set a minimum bid and many auctions allow a buy-back opportunity.
If Mr. Haden read the USDA regulations he would realize that it is illegal to send crippled horses to slaughter. Horses that are neglected should not be sentenced to death in a slaughter plant. Their owners should be sentenced in criminal court. Very few equines are inherently mean or dangerous. Most supposedly mean horses are nothing more than the reflection of the human who owns it.
Messer’s statement about ‘what to do with the bodies’ is absurd. Considering that there are 9,200,000 equines in the US and a 5% mortality rate, 460,000 equines lose their lives each year. Where is the documentation showing any environmental impact at all? In contrast, the Cavel plant was repeatedly fined for contamination of the river.
I beg to differ with Lenz’ parting comment regarding in which he states ‘because the average American is around three generations removed from the farm, they don't understand equine care.’ This is one of the most idiotic statements Tom has made to date. I don’t need to live on the back 40 listening to banjo music and have my horses graze around abandoned vehicles to understand equine care. Considering that this is a multi-billion dollar industry, the vast majority of horse owners fully understands equine care and are responsible owners who do not ship horses to slaughter.
Slaughter is not nor has ever been humane! By the very nature of what takes place during transport and the waiting to die hearing others scream before its your turn smelling the terror and blood and then there is the less than skillful execution of the job. Horses half dead hanging hope side down or perhaps re-positioned for another bolt Humane NEVER> Everytime pro slaughter speaks owner responsibilty has vanished again!
Here we go again, with the anti-slaughter crowd insisting that there is such a thing as a pretty death, and wanting that for every horsie.
Every mammal must die. Death is never pretty. You'll say that death should be humane. Death is always humane, because all suffering ends with death.
Horse slaughter for human consumption within our borders gave every horse a base value, even if it was so mean it would have preferred to rip your throat out rather than accept carrots from you. Because all of our domestic for-human-consumption plants were forced to close by delicate idealists, horses no longer have that base value. Instead, a 1000 pound animal without special pedigree or skills HAS NO ECONOMIC VALUE.
Add to that, the increasing cost of hay and feed and farrier and veterinary services. Consider that folks are finding it harder to afford fuel for their automobiles so they can drive to work, along with all other rising expenses.
I understand the emotional reaction of delicate idealists with regard to horse slaughter, but their timing sucks.
Lil Peck,
Why are you breeding horses 'without special pedigree or skills'? Horses such as this have never held much value so why are they continously bred?? Focus on quality, not quantity. Breeding a poorly conformed mare to an equally sub-quality stallion will never produce high quality, high dollar offspring. The 'let's breed 20 mares and hope we get a good foal out of one of em' thought process needs to change.
Death is always humane??? Hardly. Forcing an animal to spend days without food or water is not humane. Transporting equines in double-decked trailers designed for cattle is not humane. Breeding mares simply to increase their kill weight is not humane. Allowing 10% of horses in slaughter plants to be fully conscious during vivisection is not humane. Repeated strikes with a non-penetrating captive bolt gun is not humane. You are only focusing on the moment that death occurs and not at all considering the entire process which must be evaluated in order to present a qualified opinion.
The fact remains that it is still legal to sell horses to kill buyers. The issue with the pro-slaughter group is that they want a higher per pound price. Once again, and as always, it comes down to making a few dollars instead of providing the horse with a humane death by lethal injection administered by a veterinarian.
'Delicate Idealists'? As usual, the pro-slaughter folks have to resort to using such labels because they can't offer up hard facts and statistics.
We're 'delicate'? WE have the guts to make the tough decisions. WE have the backbone to make the call to the vet and are holding the lead lines when our horses are euthanized. WE spend the money to rent a backhoe or pay a renderer for disposal. WE don't dump our horses at auctions and make up stories about how the horses 'went to a good home'. WE don't fool ourselves into believing that our $500 horses are really worth $5,000 even though they don't have papers or special skills.
I find the first paragraph by Joyce Moore in her last post both sad and amusing as we as people seem to be doing the same things in our own society by allowing the over breeding of ourselves "trying to get just one good one" out of the bunch and our own kind seemingly in this day and age to become a "disposable commodity" of sorts just as some here are looking at this horse issue as well.
In Joyce's paragraph just substitute the word horse with human and look at how it reads to you and you will see what I mean and then think about the pathetic shape our society is in today.
It looks to me that horses or animals have more value than a human being these days doesn't it if you look at it that way.
American horse meat is unsafe for human consumption:
* 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).
What are the side-effects of bute?
* Phenylbutazone 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 …
Note: The Food and Drug Administration has not approved the use of phenylbutazone in food-producing animals; therefore, there are no established withdrawal times on product labeling for food-producing species. Phenylbutazone is not permitted at any concentration (zero tolerance) in meat, milk, or eggs intended for human consumption.
http://www.usp.org/pdf/EN/veterinary/phe...
To Dr. Messer -- so let me get this straight ... an estimated 10% of the US horse population dies of euthanasia or natural causes each year, yet you're not worried about those bodies. You're only worried about the 1% that go to slaughter (most of which could find suitable homes with proper marketing). Well, how convenient for you to cry being "green". Maybe you should wake up to see what other options are out there ...
Humane euthanasia can be done for a very nominal fee by the U of I: Euthanasia, necropsy and disposal $85.
Burial. Not all locations offer burial options, but many do or can be found within a short distance.
Renderers. Most all locations in the US have renderers that will pick up your horse.
Landfills. Not all landfills accept horses, but many do for a very nominal fee.
Cremation. Not widely available yet, but will become more so in the coming years.
Biodigesters:
Biodigesters use alkaline hydrolysis to decompose animal carcasses and other potential hazardous wastes rapidly. Produces no pollution to air, land or water.
"I think eventually, everybody will be going to this system or something similar," Hockman said. [Dr. Hockman, Associate Director for Facilities, University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine]
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/
apr04/040401l.asp
Composting:
Large-carcass composting is a growing and accepted practice among feedyards and dairies, said Dr. Brent Auvermann, a Texas Agricultural Experiment Station agricultural engineer who has researched the process for about five years.
Both Auvermann and Baker said the small individual horse owner might not see composting as an option, but a large, centrally located commercial composting operation would offer a service to area horse owners and veterinarians.
"Without renderers to go to, this could become a big market," Baker said. "If you look at it environmentally and politically, it works. It's the whole circle of life thing. You grow the grass to feed the animals and then turn around and use them to do the same thing for the next generation."
Auvermann said several other options for the composted material would be to be used as a Class A biosolid for roadways and to help establish turf grass, or it could be used in the bioenergy arena. The material could be gasified and burned after it is composted.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
10/061012092302.htm
http://www.biosafeengineering.com/
tissue.html
Thank you Rachel Duff for writing a very informative and timely article.
The equine slaughter issue is one that is very controversial even within the industry, but one that merits discussion and understanding from both sides of the issue. Name calling, disparaging remarks and the spreading of misinformation is counterproductive and does nothing to improve the condition of the unwanted horse.
I personally know Dr. Lenz, Dr. Haden, Dr. Messer and Rosy Erganian. To say that any one of these people’s statements and opinions are “shameful”, “misinformed”, “idiotic” or “absurd”; or that they have been “bought by pro-slaughter groups” is ridiculous. All of these people have dedicated their lives to helping horses and their owners, and are acutely aware of the growing problem of equine abuse and neglect.
If anyone wants to know the facts concerning the problem of unwanted horses, I would suggest visiting the following websites rather than trusting the unchecked editorial comments of anyone. Better yet, attend the meeting at 6 pm Monday night.
US to Mexico Weekly Livestock Export Summary:
www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/al_ls635.txt
Unwanted Horse Coalition:
www.unwantedhorsecoalition.org
AVMA web archive of news articles and other resources regarding unwanted horses and horse slaughter:
www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/unwan...
If someone allows a horse to starve, they should be sent to jail.
If they can't keep a horse, they should try to find a place at a rescue or humanely have the horse put down, if no other home can be found. It's called "responsibility" and then they aren't breaking the law by starving their animal. This is just common sense, that I am finding a lot of horse owners don't have.
Horses are not old sweaters to be thrown in the trash; they are sentient beings.
This is what this therapeutic riding instructor thinks should happen to our horses: http://www.saplonline.org/Legislation/sl...
and this: http://www.hsus.org/video_clips/horse_sl...
Shame on her.
Please call your congressperson and ask them to cosponsor H.R. 6598.
Dear Dr. Voris:
I refer to the sites I listed above in my previous post. It is beyond my comprehension how any veterinarian can condone this brutality.
I am very happy to say that my own veterinarian is against horse slaughter and only those who have been misled by the AVMA are still touting this barbarism.
I would never use a veterinarian who was at any time a proponent of horse slaughter. I simply wouldn't trust them to "do no harm".
I would love ANY of the veterinarians to respond to the medication issue with US horses being slaughtered for human consumption:
Veterinarians should be in violation of their own AVMA law by administering bute and almost all of the other medications they give to horses -- "Extralabel drug use is not permitted if it would result in a violative food residue or any residue that may present a risk to public health." http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/
oct00/s100100a.asp
Ms. Caruso,
I am sorry you feel that way toward me without even knowing me as a veterinarian or a person. I have not been "misled" by anyone and I speak only from my experience and first-hand knowledge. Do you feel the same toward veterinarians (or any other person) who eat meat?
I agree there is a certain amount of irresponsibility on the part of some horse owners. However, there is also a great deal of human tragedy that leads secondarily to horse neglect. Right now there are not many options for these people or their horses.
Ms. Hackman,
I agree that animals intended for food should not be given banned substances by a veterinarian or their owner. The “Red Book” describes the protocol for dealing with violators and this protocol includes prosecution of repeat offenders.
Dear Dr. Voris,
I cannot condemn, because I still eat chicken and fish. To be honest, even if I did eat all meats, I wouldn't condemn anyone. Most of us were brought up eating meat and it's not easy to stop.
I wanted to stop eating beef for a long time, but I found it very easy three years ago when I began to fight against horse slaughter. The pictures of horse meat that I had seen on the net made the process less difficult.
Horses are not livestock; they are not food animals in the United States.
Why should we continue to send our horses to foreign countries for their plates? Do you think we should also send our homeless and abused dogs and cats to China for their plates?
If horse owners cannot afford to put their horses down humanely by a veterinarian, then they shouldn't own the horse. Again, it's called responsibility.
Neglected and Abused: "Informal research has shown that horse rescue facilities are full from the overwhelming number of unwanted horses, said Tom Lenz, a veterinarian and chairman for the Unwanted Horse Coalition."
Response: A recent poll conducted by Steven Rei (steverei@gmail.com), founder of the National Equine Rescue Coalition, showed that only 60% of the horse rescues in his coalition were full. Horses termed “unwanted” has no merit but has been coined by an pro-slaughter industry that wishes to sway public opinion toward their side in order to block federal legislation which would ban horse slaughter.
Comment: "He points out that there has been a drastic increase in the number of horses being hauled to Canada and Mexico for slaughter."
Response: Horses were sent to slaughter to Mexico for two years prior to the closure of the horse slaughter houses in the US. Why is Mr. Lenz commenting on the "increase" in the number of horses going to Canada and Mexico?? Don't understand this comment. Is it because he wants the slaughter house plants in the US re-opened?
Comment: "There is definitely a higher volume of unwanted horses and no place for them to go," said Sharon Marohl, president of the Missouri Equine Council. "The Unwanted Horse Coalition was created under the American Horse Council to help deal with this problem nationwide."
Response: The comment by Ms. Marohl about the number of unwanted horses is so UNTRUE but has been written in articles and online so many times... The FACTS are that the number of unwanted horses has NOT increased even during this very bad economy. There is a VERY recent article based on HARD DATA by John Holland which shows that abuse and neglect of horses has REMAINED THE SAME. Just look at the numbers. In 2002 the Illinois slaughter house burned to the ground and it took some time for it to be rebuilt. Reports of abandoned, abused and neglected horses in the Illinois area were actually on the rise in the 2 years before the fire but decreased afterwards.
The number of horses slaughtered in the US decreased significantly from over 300,000 annually in the 1990s to 66,000 in 2004. THERE WAS NO NOTABLE INCREASE DURING THIS TIME OF ABANDONED, ABUSED OR NEGLECTED HORSES.
A recent study of trends in horse slaughter revealed the number of horses slaughtered was determined by a demand for horsemeat primarily in Europe and Not by the number of unwanted or abandoned horses.
Overall, these findings contradict horse slaughter industry claims that if horse slaughter is banned, there will be large numbers of abandoned, unwanted horses. The demand for horsemeat creates a market where horse slaughter "kill buyers" compete with people who want to buy horses. This encourages owners to supply that market through OVERBREEDING horses. If slaughter of American horses for human food is made illegal, there would be less incentive to overbreed horses. The study shows that there would be no significant or sustained increase in unwanted or abandoned horses.
http://www.animallawcoalition.com/horse-.... This article is based on HARD DATA and not hearsay or opinion.
Comment: "But many veterinarians say the process was humane from the beginning. Horse slaughter plants were required to adhere to the American Veterinary Medial Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners approved method. The U.S. Department of Agriculture had also approved this method, Lenz said."
Response: Horse slaughter will never be "humane." Even the veterinarian who worked for the USDA testified before Congress that the process isn't humane. In 2000, the AVMA stated that the captive bolt gun should not be used on equines unless head restraint could be assured. This is because of the relative narrow forehead of equines, their head shyness and the fact that the brain is set back further than in cattle for which the gun was designed and intended. It is difficult at best for an operator to assure proper placement of the gun.
No slaughter house found a practical way to restrain the heads of the horses, so by the AVMA's very definition, the process was not acceptable. The result was a very large number of ineffective stuns. These misplaced blows undoubtedly caused severe pain until a stunning or fatal blow was delivered. Many of the horses are thus only stunned and are bled out and skinned alive.
Comment: ""If all unwanted horses are euthanized, where do we put 100,000 bodies?" Messer said. "It's not environmentally friendly."
Response: Over 800,000 horses have been euthanized and buried in the US. Why is it that Messer is so concerned about the environment????? This is a ridiculous statement.
Irresponsible breeding must end. People who can't afford to own horses shouldn't own horses.
To Dr. Voris: It is indeed tragic that you aren't helping by instructing people to geld their stallions to stop the irresponsible breeding cycle. Vets need to educate and instruct. They should also report any and all animal abuse. This is part of the oath you took as a veterinarian.
The AVMA says that more horses are being neglected or abused since the slaughter houses closed down. Their "evidence" is a letter sent out by Dr. May of the AVMA requesting information about any documented "increases" in abuse and neglect. The quote from that letter:
"However, have any of your constituents observed increased rates of horse neglect or abuse over the past few months? If so, we would greatly appreciate any statistics that back this up (the appropriate organizations will be credited)."
For any professional organization to request information that agrees with its position and NOT all data lacks conscience, is unprofessional and deceitful and another violation of their oath.
Finally, the vast majority of the horses sent to slaughter were NOT tested for common drugs (wormer, phenylbutazone) as the histories of the horses were unknown. The AVMA stated that the USDA found no violations. This is an untrue statement. In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) obtained from the USDA, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FAIA) found one horse out of 15 that had a violative bute level. This is 8.3% by random sampling. If you extrapolate to the number of horses slaughtered in one year, then one can infer that 8,300 horse carcasses would have excessive amounts of the carcinogen phenylbutazone. This translate into 4 million pounds of horse meat.
How much sense does it make for the USDA to have stopped testing for bute on the horses sent to slaughter when the plants were in operation in the US? If you don't have a history on the horse, this is even more reason why you would want to test the animal to make sure that none of these drugs are in the horses. The side of the wormer box states that it is not to be used in animals destined for human consumption. No one knows how many horses that were slaughtered for human consumption had these drugs in them and are now being ingested by humans.
Americans grow VERY weary of all of the misinformation and misleading statements in this article and all of the other pro-slaughter articles published by the PR machine of the pro-slaughter group. Why don't you use this money to educate horse owners about responsible breeding. Better still, why don't you buy hay and feed for horses who are affected by the downturn in the economy instead of spending all this money on propaganda. You can also set up a euthanasia fund and a gelding fund. You took an oath to "protect" animal health. VETS can and should teach people about responsible breeding.
Ms. Caruso,
I don't think we have a disagreement with the economic premise of your statement: "If horse owners cannot afford to put their horses down humanely by a veterinarian, then they shouldn't own the horse. Again, it's called responsibility." However, I hope you can understand that when the rules change in the middle of the game (or, in other words, when viable markets suddenly disapear) it can leave some people without options for horses they no longer can afford to keep.
I might ask where you got your definition of "livestock"? The US legal definition of livestock includes horses. Shouldn't the livestock/pet classification ultimately be determined by the actual owner of the animal?
As for the pet question, I am suprised there is not more of an uproar concerning the overpopulation of dogs and cats. The number of unwanted "pets" dwarf those of unwanted horses, and both result in the euthanasia-in one form or another-of many, many animals.
Dr. Voris,
1) There are more American horses going to slaughter now than when the three US horse slaughter houses were in operation, so "lack" of slaughter clearly isn't the issue of why people aren't able to feed/care for their horses and why the bottom has fallen out of the market. Feed, bedding & fuel prices have soared along with people losing their jobs and homes. THAT is the issue.
2) How do you expect people to believe that this group of professionals from Missouri (who each have vested interests in the pro-slaughter AVMA & AAEP) -- the state that recently passed Resolution No. 35 which calls on Congress to defeat the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, H.R. 503/S.B. 311 and "support the location of USDA approved horse processing facilities on state, tribal, or private lands under mutually-acceptable and market-driven land leases and, if necessary, a mutually-acceptable assignment of revenues" -- would really care about horses vs. bringing horse slaughter back to the US? As leaders in your field, you could help bring about positive change in education, training and help for horses, but all I hear from you is slaughter the victims. We don't need it, we don't want it and it is not legal according to our own, the EU and Canadian food laws.
Dear Dr. Voris,
I don't understand how you say you are using your experience and first hand knowledge but then you cite the pro-slaughter web pages of the AVMA and AAEP on the "unwanted" horse theory. You should know that the "unwanted" horse theory was "debunked." Here are the web sites you should read:
http://www.animallawcoalition.com/horse-...
http://www.kaufmanzoning.net/horsemeat/
http://commonhorsesense.net/
http://www.animals-angels.com/index.php?...
Here is the word for word comments from the Animal Welfare institute regarding the AVMA role in horse slaughter:
"Documents held by AWI show that the AVMA is part of a coalition founded by the companies that own the defunct domestic slaughterhouses which are now exporting horses to Mexico and Canada for slaughter. The coalition’s primary goal is to block passage of the AHSPA.
“It’s ironic that those screaming the loudest about the mass exports are actively working with the very same slaughterhouses that are shipping our horses to Mexico. How the AVMA can claim to be acting in the name of animal welfare is anyone’s guess,” said Heyde. “While they’re helping to send horses to Mexico for slaughter AWI is working to shut the trade down. We’re also promoting responsible horse ownership, combating unscrupulous breeding and working to ensure placement of horses in need through our leadership in the Homes for Horses Coalition. I think it’s pretty clear who has the best interest of the horses at heart, and it’s not the AVMA.”
http://animalwelfareinstitute.blogspot.c...
Your vast experience and knowledge can help the horse owners in Missouri by uring the AVMA to set up a horse feed emergency fund, a gelding fund, an education fund and a euthania fund. Implementation of one or more of these funds would be a positive step to help horse owners in Missouri.
One more time:
Your vast experience and knowledge can help the horse owners in Missouri by urging the AVMA to set up a horse feed (hay and grain) emergency fund, a gelding fund, an education fund and a euthanasia fund (should be last resort assuming the AVMA places a significant amount of money in the food fund). Implementation of these funds would be a positive step to help horse owners in Missouri.
There are many of us who have stepped up to the plate to help horse owners cope with the increase in hay and grain due to gas prices by buying hay and grain for them. You can show the same level of compassion as it will prevent starvation/neglect, improve horses lives and reduce human tragedy as you call it because these people will have more money to help themselves.
The intelligence of the scientists of the AVMA astounds me. We all know that horses are flight animals, have a very keen sense and they know danger immediately. But these renowned veterinarians and scientists think that the way they are killing horses is acceptable. It’s not. You are talking about a hit or miss execution that is very cruel and disgusting ,captive bolt and or shot gun ?. Watch the video of the hidden camera from the Canada slaughter house. Mexico well that’s another story. Stabbed to death? Paralyzed ? hung up dead or alive. This is disgraceful, excuses for horses( which are and always will be companion pets) to go thru a abusive journey to a slaughter plant and be brutally killed. They are not cows, but they are being bred like cows to supply Europe horse meat. AQHA bred over 140 thousand foals last year....let’s talk about PMU farms, feedlots and other horse organizations that are breeding away. That’s your un wanted dip do. Slaughter can not be an option for horses. Do they have cows in the Olympics?
GIVE UP YOUR BLOOD MONEY AND HELP US STOP THIS
AMERICAN DISGRACE..
Ms. Marini,
I find it ironic that someone who does not know me personally would find it within their purview to cite what I tell (or don't tell) my clients, or even dare to insinuate that I am not living up to my oath.
The fact that you say you "don't understand....my experience and first hand knowledge" is exactly the problem. I think if you could separate your emotion from the very real issue at hand, we may be able to have a productive discussion.
My citing the AVMA website, if you took the time to actually read it, was to illustrate current news articles addressing the problem with horse neglect. Linked on the AVMA site are articles from the USA Today, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the AP and many other unbiased outlets I'm sure you will somehow find a way to label "pro-slaughter".
The evidence is all around, all you have to do is open your eyes; talk and listen to people in the industry-maybe even ask questions-instead of making accusations, and then you might be able to see how I can say I am using my experience and first hand knowledge.
Dear Dr. Voris,
The articles you cite especially the USA Today articles are biased. If you would bother to read my comments on this board, you would see that the AVMA is insinuated in the pro-slaughter community (see Chris Heyde's comments above from AWI). Responsible vets would not condone or be complicit with the slaughter method. It is inhumane and will always be inhumane as outlined above.
You should be using your experience and first-hand knowledge to convince the AVMA to help horse owners in Missouri by setting up the funds mentioned. This is what I don't understand. Why no use your knowledge and experience to convince the AVMA to help horse owners in Missouri by feeding their horses.
You need to open your eyes and read the hard data on the fallacious "data" written by the AVMA and other pro-slaughter institutions that claim that they are interested in horse welfare. This is an oxymoron.
The real evidence debunks all of the pro-slaughter claims for slaughter. You need to read them.
And for your information I have heard and listened to people in the industry about the reasons for slaughter and the real DATA debunks all of their assertions hands down. You can try to dispute hard data but scientists know that the truth is in the hard data not the opinions without merit that the PR machine of the pro-slaughter community put out to instill fear that slaughter is a "necessary evil." It isn't and the AVMA and AAEP who support slaughter are discrediting the institutions and profession. The oath is to protect animals not consign them to a brutal and cruel death. This is an abdication of your oath as a vet. Set up the funds and help horses and their owners so they can help themselves.
Dr. Voris,
By the way, it is Dr. Marini.
Dr. Voris,
Please read: "It’s ironic that those screaming the loudest about the mass exports are actively working with the very same slaughterhouses that are shipping our horses to Mexico. How the AVMA can claim to be acting in the name of animal welfare is anyone’s guess,” said Heyde.
This article popped up on the AVMA news emails I receive currently. I have thought much about this subject before interviewing at a couple of veterinary schools. First off I greatly appreciate Rachel Duff for writing about this article and being willing to write about such a charged issue. I know there has been sever controversy on both sides of this issue; however I believe that both sides want these horses to be treated well. I myself have never been a horse owner, yet I have seen the ugly side of animals not being wanted.
I grew up in “rural” America, and our town population was just under 300 people. Because we were a farming community there was some kind of perception that we would take in stray dogs and cats. Many of these animals that were abandoned by people died terrible deaths, some from starvation, dehydration, predation, and finally the animals that did not die became problematic. I myself was mauled by one of these dogs. After such events our community would go out and shoot these animals. Once these animals were shot, they would run off and die somewhere. Though I never participated in these events, I understood why they needed to be performed. Through these events and others in my life, including being in a war zone for over a year, I have seen what terrible deaths looks like, and I did not enjoy it.
Having the availability of slaughtering at a supervised facility under the supervision of people who follow the rules would be much better for the horses than having them abandoned in a field where they would die. The majority of animal suffering at these facilities can be attributed to someone not following rules and mandates that were made. I know that this is a wonderful concept to believe someone will follow the rules 100% of the time, but realistically it probably won’t happen, hence having the correct supervision for each facility would be ideal. The current method is to slaughter these animals unsupervised in other countries.
As for Dr. Voris’s comments, thank you. I agreed with what you wrote. As for people verbally attacking or condemning someone and assuming how they provide their services because of what they state is absolutely immoral. I think that what Dr. Voris states about people separating their emotions from this subject is very wise. I perceive that Dr. Voris is asking people to look at this from a broad perspective and stating which of the following choices would be the best for the animals and people.
I would highly recommend that those who are very concerned over this look into the issue of solving the problem of unwanted horses rather than attacking a symptom of that issue which is horse slaughter. The problem regardless of what happens to horse slaughter and or shipping horses to slaughter is more globally related to horses not being wanted.
Dear. Dr. Voris:
Horse slaughter has been going on for many years. I'm not sure how your argument about "rules changing" fits this scenario.
I will ask you though, how you cannot react to this or how you can condone it: http://www.saplonline.org/Legislation/sl...
I hope you watch the above and let me know how you can, with a clear conscience say that this is humane. And, if it is not humane, why would you support such an action?
And then there is horse slaughter in Mexico. Again, I hope you will watch the video and let me know if you think this is also humane: http://www.hsus.org/video_clips/horse_sl...
Horse slaughter is unethical and it cannot be made ethical by any argument.
As for your cat and dog argument, I have petitioned for mandatory spay and neuter laws, but as we fight the AQH and the AVMA on horse slaughter, we fight the AKC on spaying and neutering dogs. Do you see a parallel? The AKC makes their money on registering dogs and cats, just as the AQH makes their money on registering foals. I'm still trying to figure out how the AVMA monetarily wins by supporting horse slaughter; I'm sure someone smarter than me, will eventually let us all know.
We are evolving and we have learned that it is not moral to treat animals as if they feel no pain or do not have feelings. It simply is not true. I'm sure that after working with animals, you have also learned this to be true and that horses and all animals are sentient.
Just as we have abolished torture, slavery and unfair treatment of humans as this is to put it mildly, barbaric, we will eventually abolish torture, slavery and unfair treatment of animals. I hope that you will be part of the solution, rather than living in the past with all of its atrocities.
Horse slaughter is one of those atrocities.
My question is how many of you that are against horse processing were at the Unwanted horse seminar tonight? For those that are just reading the blog there were not ANY anti-slaughter peoiple there. Or at least they didn't voice their thoughts. It was horse owners there. We are the ones that know and understand the situation. We are the ones working this issue. The so called animal "welfare" people only rant and rave about something they know nothing about.
This entire article hinges on this line "The effect of those bans has rippled through the horse industry." That line is demonstrably and unequivocally false. One has only to look at the USDA statistics.
Through June of this year we sent 65,899 horses to slaughter as opposed to only 63,650 for the same period of 2006 (before the plants were closed). Since more horses are being slaughtered than before, the premise of this whole article is false. No other argument is needed.
Slaughter has simply shifted from US based plants to Canadian and Mexican plants. Cavel shifted its operations to the Natural Valley plant in SK Canada without losing a stroke.
The same kill buyers are buying as many horses as they need to fill demand and for the same range of prices as ever. The only difference is where they are being slaughtered.
And as for the concern about horses being slaughtered in Mexico, that has been happening to various degrees for decades. Where was the same concern from the AVMA and the pro-slaughter camp in 1994 when we sent 31,000 horses to slaughter in Mexico?
As to the ethics of the AVMA, I am at a disadvantage on the topic since I have never personally observed any. Even so, I must note that at the same time that Dr. Bonnie Beaver was telling Congress how wonderful the captive bolt gun was, her web masters were busy taking down the 2000 report on acceptable methods of euthanasia which said the captive bolt gun was unacceptable in equines and putting one up that said it was just peachy.
If Dr. Voris would like to turn this discussion to the ethics of the AVMA we can discuss why a member of its committee on humane practices gave out the advice that a good way to dispose of unwanted live chickens was to throw them into a wood chipper. Or we could discuss why the AVMA defended the declawing of cats (the most profitable surgery known in veterinary "care") long after studies had shown it caused terrible behavioral problems.
The largest employer of Veterinarians in the United States is the USDA, and those jobs are almost all involved with slaughterhouse inspections. Is it any wonder that the USDA and the AVMA are joined at the hip?
It is a tragedy when people have to use "emotion" as a way to discredit people who cite factual information. It is also unfortunate and a distinct tragedy when people use a black brush and paint every person in the anti-slaughter movement as people who "rand and rave about something they know nothing about." Many of us DO know about and care for horses. You people are to be pitied.
Finally, horses helped us build this nation and today serve in our military and police departments. Not to mention therapy programs for children and returning soldiers who have lost a limb in combat. Horses are companion animals and they have earned the right to a dignified and honorable death. Horse slaughter is neither dignified or honorable. And the road to hell is paved by greedy, immoral people who think they are masters of anything that is not human.
Mr. Holland,
I cannot let such a mistake go uncorrected.
Your statement "The largest employer of Veterinarians in the United States is the USDA" is completely false. As of December 31, 2007 there were 58,240 veterinarians in private practice. During the same census period, there were only 1731 veterinarians employed by the federal government.
Much of what has been posted on this board is horribly inacurate as is illustrated above. It is truely unfortunate that meaningful dialog is impossible given that personal attacks and blatant use of misinfomation is the modus operandi of the opposing thought.
Here is an emotion...I am pissed, that this happened to a loyal and trusting animal because of money.
I am pissed that this foreign owned company came into the United States, encouraged people to breed for horse slaughter. I am pissed that Wythe drugs uses pregnant horses urine to make harmone pills, and the foals that don't get adopted are butchered. This is the majority of the so called unwanted horse. Yes people drop them at auctions, when they are not fast enough, or what ever the case may be. But the majority are being bred and butchered to supply Europe with horse meat. Now Ollie we have a mess on our hands. I am a horse owner and lover. I do realize the over population that these people made and that we are going to need low cost euthanasia. I am pissed that this happened and it is going to take years to fix. The bill is going to pass, because what these people are doing is criminal....intent to breed and butcher. Intentionally sending a horse to slaughter to a horrific death. The horse domesticated companion pet, being destroyed for money. You can dance around the facts all you want. These are the facts, look into Animal Angels investigations and see the thousands standing in feed lots, being penned up, no exercise so they get nice and fat....see them mate , see the foals, see this the way it is and help do something about it. No excuse is going to justify this to me and many others. Emotion....oh there is plenty of emotion FURIOUS
Ms. Caruso,
Thank you for asking for clarification on my statement concerning "rules changing".
You are correct, this market has been available for many years. Some suggest, and I agree, that the availability of horse slaughter propped-up the market price for horses with little or no useful value and supported the overpopulation of horses. When the "rules changed", ie. when domestic slaughter ended with the closing of plants in TX and IL, and there were insufficient alternate outlets (rescue farms and shelters) to immediately accept the 60,000+horses/year that would have been processed AND at the same time, feed and fuel prices dramatically increased-the problem of overpopulation was exposed and the cases of abuse and neglect increased.
I realize we have a fundamental disagreement over the issue of slaughter. I have watched the videos you posted of the Mexican slaughter plants (both videos were taken in Mexico) and agree the images are disturbing. Believe me, I do not enjoy watching anything suffer. I cannot help but think that it is somewhat ironic that since the HSUS has succeeded in getting the domestic slaughter plants which had federal oversight closed, the numbers of horses exported to Mexico-where there is no oversight and little training-have increased. Yet another unintended consequence.
I cannot agree with you statements comparing the processing animals for food to human torture and slavery. Unfortunately, I believe this is the root of this entire discussion. Carrying out your argument to the fullest would put an end to the production of all meat products and the by products of animal agriculture-which is exactly what the groups you cite ultimately desire.
Dr. Marini,
I had hoped to be able to have a respectful and thoughtful dialog with you, sadly I see that we cannot.
Dear Dr. Voris:
The information I posted on this web site is all TRUE. The hard data about the number of so-called unwanted horses was posted but here it is again:
http://www.animallawcoalition.com/horse-....
You can use a broad brush to claim that "Much of what has been posted on this board is horribly inacurate as is illustrated above" but the truth lies in the numbers. Numbers don't know denial and they don't lie. Please click on the animal law coalition website where you can view the graphs for yourself. Your statement about the "red book" and violators who give banned substances to horses and prosecuting repeat offenders is nice but one only has to look at the data. Random sampling of horse carcasses by the Food Safety and Inspection Service showed 8.3% of the carcasses to contain violative phenylbutazone levels. My question to you is how do you use the "red book" when you don't know the owners of horses with violative bute levels because the histories of the horses at slaughter houses are unknown? How do people send pregnant mares to slaughter? This is literally a baby in a Mommy's tummy. A pregnant mare delivered a foal on the slaughter house floor at Cavel when it was in operation in Illinois? Horse killers prize pregnant mares because slaughter houses buy horses by the pound. Since pregnant mares weigh more, killers make more money. It is illegal to send blind horses to slaughter. Yet, these horses were found at the horse slaughter house. You should read Animal Angels reports about the conditions of feedlots and the breeding etc. You can deny the validity of these things if you like and you can deny the validity of the graphs based upon hard data but this doesn't change the truth.
Dr. Voris,
Before you called my statement that the USDA is the largest employer of veterinarians in the country "completely false", and then used that declaration to impute the rest of my post, you might have refreshed your skill at parsing the English language. "Private practice" is not an employer, it is a category of employers.
I did not say that the USDA employs more veterinarians than any other category or group of employers. I did not say the USDA hires most of the veterinarians in the US. I said that they are the largest employer. If there is a single employer in the US that hires nearly as many veterinarians, please identify it.
My point stands. No other single employer comes close to having so much influence on the veterinary profession,and that is before one considers the vast number of veterinarians in private practice who work in animal agriculture (meat production) elbow-to-elbow with and/or under the auspices of the USDA .
If you wish to challenge the rest of my points about the AVMA, please do so specifically and not by a broad, vague inference based on an incorrect charge one of them is false ergo they all are false. The fact that you did not do so speaks volumes.
Dear Dr. Voris:
The real reason I feel we can't have what you call a "respectful and thoughtful dialog" is because you are defending this article. As correctly pointed out by John Holland, the statement "The effect of those bans has rippled through the horse industry" is entirely false as indicated by the USDA numbers. Your comment about the "unintended consequences" regarding the increased number of horses sent to Mexico is yet another problem for me. As pointed out by Mr. Holland, 31,000 American horses were sent to Mexico in 1994 but no one in the AVMA or pro-slaughter community said anything about it. So, why the concern now? Numbers do NOT lie but you won't review the graphs on the animal law coalition web site. I deal with numbers every day in my work. Numbers and statistics must be used to drive logical discussions. Moreover, AWI has documents showing that the AVMA is part of a coalition with the now defunct slaughter houses. The AWI wants to shut down this "industry" which supports greedy and unscrupulous people in this society. Killers make $2,000 a day by loading domesticated horses and sending them to a brutal and cruel death. You can dismiss me and maintain your opinion if you want but the truth is in the numbers.
Dr. Boris oh I mean Dr. Voris, I do not have a college education like you do sir....but I have more common sense than you and the AVMA. Like everyone stated on this forum the numbers don't lie....take a little adventure for your self and see what's going on. Go to a few feed lots around this country, visit some auctions, follow a killer buyers truck. Then post what you observed. Horses are not cows. The ridiculous statement you made about this will lead into banning all meat... BS. Plain and simple English, we don't want horses to be pet patties for Europe. We don't want horses being abused in feed lots, trucked, and brutally killed and butchered. We are sick that this has happened in the United States and we want it stopped.
Ms. Linda Linda Berardo,
I can clearly see you are not interested in a respectful or thoughtful dialog. I wish you good health and happiness. Have a nice day.
Dr. Voris:
I beg to differ with your assertion that the newspapers you have cited are unbiased, in particular USA Today. Lack of bias is proven by a willingness to present both sides of an issue. I personally, as a member of a group that has researched the claims of horse abuse, neglect and abandonment, have contacted USA Today on several occasions, requesting equal space for rebuttal. My request was not considered worthy of a reply. Others have done the same and met with the same response--silence.
To the best of my recollection, only one small on-line publication, when presented with incontrovertible proof of the erroneous information they had published, printed what might be called a retraction. And it was a grudging, perfunctory statement at best.
The publications that persist in publishing biased pro-slaughter pieces, and there are many, do so for one reason: sensationalism. Bordering on yellow journalism, their reporters have taken anecdotal tales and presented them as fact. When asked for documentary evidence in proof of their claims, none is forthcoming. A challenge to their information is often met with hostility bordering on pathological. Questioners have been insulted, threatened and dismissed as "know-nothings" merely for asking for proof. And the invariable accusation of emotionalism always follows. ALWAYS.
I do not know Dr. Marini but your reaction to her thoughtful and knowledgeable posts is typical of pro-slaughter proponents: when confronted with the facts, the reaction is to dismiss the presenter of those facts as unworthy of participation in further dialogue. But you can never change the data by refusing to acknowledge it. Hitler wasn't a "good guy" because the Nazis said it was so; horse slaughter for human consumption is not humane, necessary or wanted by the majority of Americans just because you and the AVMA say it is so.
Mr. Holland, (Forgive me if I should be addressing you as Dr. Holland as I can see from Dr. Marini's link that you are a co-author of her cited report)
Your comment about my mastery of the English language could possibly have some merit. You see, I read for both what the words say on paper and what the author is trying to imply-I guess I should just take at face value what is on paper, but I can't.
Of the 58,240 veterinarians in private practice, only 5,090 practice in food production medicine. Again, you are either mistaken, or are purposefully using words to mislead.
I have taken some time to read your article and think there is some good information contained within the article, but I have a few questions. If you could, I would appreciate some elaboration.
1. Can you be certain that the information generated by pet-abuse.com is complete given what you say about how they obtain their information-"The data on this site is well organized for research, but there are significant limitations to its use. Data is entered as abuse cases are flagged from other media sources."? If so, how can you discount current media reports of increased equine abuse and neglect?
2. You state in the last paragraph of Figure 2, "Thus while it is true that the closing of the US based horse slaughter plants in 2007 drove American horses over the borders to Canada and Mexico, the converse is not true and domestic slaughter has not historically protected American horses from going to these countries in similar numbers." Yet Figure 1 illustrates almost no US horses going to Mexico for slaughter prior to 2004 and 25,000 going to Canada during the majority of the illustrated time frame. How do you defend the second portion of your statement given that 2008 year-to-date, 32,443 horses have been exported to Mexico alone for slaughter?
3. In the "Summary of Slaughter Trends" you state, "The only increase in abuse caused by the closings has been the longer trips and more brutal slaughter conditions that the horses are subjected to." How do you defend this statement when Figure 6 demonstrates Illinois abuse cases jumped from a steady range of 400-450 to over 600 once the plant closed in 2007?
4. In figure 7, you associate the increase of equine abuse cases increasing with the unemployment rate-a fact I do not dispute as likely very accurate. Why didn't you overlay figure 6 onto figure 7 as the plant closing in IL had an impact on both unemployment and equine abuse cases in the state of Illinois?
5. How do you defend your statement at the end of the Figure 7 explanation, "The Illinois data supports the obvious conclusion that bad economic conditions lead to more abuse and neglect. This should come as no surprise, but the fact that slaughter does not affect abuse and neglect in a positive way (if any at all), may be surprising to the advocates of the "unwanted horse" theory about slaughter's beneficial contribution to the negation of abuse." given the graphic evidence to the contrary on Figure 6?
6. Figure 9 explanation states "There are obvious reasons why the nationwide unemployment number is a less than perfect barometer for nationwide equine abuse even if the two are closely correlate on a regional level. For example, the average unemployment does not take into account the fact that some states have larger horse populations than others and unemployment varies significantly between states. Weighting each state was beyond the scope of this study." Does this fact make your conclusions more or less valid? I see from the graph that unemployment rates declined from 2003 to 2007 yet the slaughter numbers nearly doubled.
7. Where is the data that supports conclusion 5? If it is from the Illinois graph (7), your conclusion is incomplete as this time period was exactly the time period IL banned horse slaughter. If it is from figure 8, the numbers of abuse cases in ealy 2008 are identical to figures from 2006, and remember where you are getting your abuse numbers, from the media....
I really enjoyed reading your work, but anyone can form an opinion and find "data" to support it. Once again, it is difficult to have meaningful dialog given that personal attacks and blatant use of misinformation is the modus operandi of the opposing thought.
What is thoughtful or knowledgable about the following?
Dr. Marini wrote: "You people are to be pitied", "And the road to hell is paved by greedy, immoral people who think they are masters of anything that is not human."
Joyce Jacobson wrote: "Hitler wasn't a "good guy" because the Nazis said it was so; horse slaughter for human consumption is not humane, necessary or wanted by the majority of Americans just because you and the AVMA say it is so."
Dear Dr. Voris:
It is highly insulting and disrespectful to state that "anyone can form an opinion and find "data" to support it. You are again dismissing the hard data. Where are the pro-slaughter "data?"
Dr Voris:
It is clear that you do NOT wish to engage in a "thoughtful and knowledgeable" discussion when you dismiss hard data. You have already drawn your conclusion and your insulting remarks about the data prove it.
Dr Marini,
I am not "pro-slaughter", that is a label you chose to use. If you take the time to read my questions to Mr. Holland, you might be able to see the weaknesses in the "facts" you wanted me so badly to read.
I've read them, I have questions, I'm waiting for a response.
There is clearly a difference between "hard data" and accurate interpretation of the "hard data".
This article would be typical coming from a Ag part of the state. After testifying at a MO house committe meeting to oppose the MO resolution to support slaughter. We were able to prove the statistics that the oppostion to slaughter are grossly distorted in their effort to stop this legislation. Want to see a MO Senator look like a liar? Wes Shoemyer and his paid lobbyists were easily shown that with hard evidence that these claims are false. This is just another effort on the pro-slaughter groups, including the cattlemans assoc. who are threatened and profit from the slaughter of american horses, to distort the truth. What is truly sickening, is that a veterinarian, who is supposed to help animals can support an inhumane practice. We in MO also know that the Mo equine council for the most part is made up of veterinarians who are pro-slaughter, and that they are not very well respected in the state. In fact there is one, that hides the fact they support slaughter from their clients, because its "bad for business". This article is just another effort to try to stop what in inevitable. Slaughter will be stopped. Then the only thing that will happen, is that the KB's will have to find another way to make huge amounts of money off of others misfortunes.
Dr. Voris,
I am sure Mr. Holland will respond to your questions. You have again misinterpreted my comment about drawing your own conclusion. I did not mean you were pro-slaughter but rather your dismissal of the data. When someone places a word in quotes, it means the data are not true. Your assertion that one can "find data (data in quotation) to support it" is a very powerful and clear statement that you don't believe it. And this is before you give Mr. Holland a chance to respond to your questions. How disrespectful, insulting and unscientific.
Ms. Snider,
You wrote: "This is just another effort on the pro-slaughter groups, including the cattlemans assoc. who are threatened and profit from the slaughter of american horses"
>I ask: How does the cattleman's association profit from horse slaughter?
You wrote: "Want to see a MO Senator look like a liar?"
>I ask: What did the Senator say and how do you want me to see it?
You wrote: "What is truly sickening, is that a veterinarian, who is supposed to help animals can support an inhumane practice"
>I ask: Do you feel the same way about veterinarians who work with beef, swine, poultry and fish?
You wrote: "We in MO also know that the Mo equine council for the most part is made up of veterinarians who are pro-slaughter, and that they are not very well respected in the state."
>I ask: How many veterinarians are members of the Missouri Equine Council? I see on their website there is only one veterinarian on the Board of Directors.
Dr. Voris,
You efforts to instill conflict and indecision will ultimately fail. You will resort to anything, now about the interpretation of the data, so you can say that you never give in. Well, yes, you refuse to be convinced of the hard data because you don't want to be convinced. It is just that simple. You will grasp at whatever thread, no matter how small, so you don't have to come to the conclusion that you can't deny the facts. There is no way to carry out a "thoughtful and knowledgeable discussion" with a person who thinks through a distorted lens. I do pity you.
Dr. Voris, a couple of years ago we met at a Young Farmers function and discussed, among many things, the issue of horse slaughter. I believe I told you that I had been inside the slaughter plants, that what I had seen was not humane and that we needed to do better. You told me that you would talk to your partners about this and I encouraged you to research the issue and come up with your own opinion. I know that Dr. Lenz has inspected the plants, but these were pre-arranged and scheduled visits. What I witnessed was very different from what Dr. Lenz saw. There was more than one occasion when the USDA vet never left his office, while load after load of horses was off-loaded and slaughtered. That being said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Tom Lenz. He has contributed immeasurably to equine health and reproduction issues and, when in private practice, was my veterinarian over the course of his 30 year career. We do, however, have very different views on the issue of horse slaughter.
Mr. Dolinko, I too grew up in a small town of under 300 hundred. At one time, there were 24 dogs dumped on our doorstep. They were loaded up in a horse trailer and hauled to a shelter for potential adoption or euthanasia. The horse slaughtering facilities are not going to slow down production in an attempt to be compliant with federal regs. They haven't in more than 30 years, even when under fire from animal rights groups, and if re-opened in the U.S., would simply continue to do business as usual.
Mr. Sharrock, as a native Missourian, former board member of the Missouri Equine Council and horse owner, let me just say that I do know of which I speak. I considered going to the seminar last night, but another commitment kept me away. Additionally, I have a friend that used to buy and sell killers for a living and that person was also unable to attend.
It has always been cheaper to buy horses, with some exception, than it has been to breed them. From my perspective, if you are breeding horses with the idea that the slaughter market is setting the base line price of your horse, then perhaps you should be rethinking your breeding program.
Dr. Marini,
You have cited Mr. Holland's report as "hard data".
You mention in one of your above posts, "As pointed out by Mr. Holland, 31,000 American horses were sent to Mexico in 1994", however, if you look at his graph (figure 1) there was an unexplained bump in 1994. All of the other years before 1994 and up to 2004 were nearly zero. Does this fact change your opinion of the overall information contained within Mr. Holland's doccument. Why would he only mention the 1994 figures and ignore 1989-1993 and 1995-2005? The only reason I can think is that the 1994 numbers supported his opinion, and the other 16 years of data did not.
Dr. Voris- 1) The cattlemans assoc. testified at that hearing in support of the resolution, if they had no interest in it, then why would they be there? I can send you supporting documentation that proves they have a financial interest in it. would you be happy with hard data? 2) When Shoemyer testified that the transport of these animals was the most highly regulated of all animals, including beef and hogs, that was disputed. He testified that the Usda regulated the slaughter of horses more diligently than any animals in order to prevent animals that had been administered any drugs or other substances that state "not intended for animals used for human consumption" , that was a lie. And proven so. This man was so mad at me at proving him wrong, he threatened me in the hallway after the hearing. I also recieved a formal apology from the committee for his conduct in the meeting.
and yes, I feel that way about any animals that are mistreated.
Finally- There is a vet group in Wentzville that has been a big part of Mo Equine council and a pro slaughter advocate. One in particular has no problem telling you what to do with a horse when he thinks it has no use.
I had a conversation with a person from Longmeadow rescue ranch, who told me that with the closure of the plants, there was no increase in abuse cases above the normal amount that they usually see. Now that was a year ago. We could check back and see if that still holds true.
Dr. Voris, you have completely missed my point. A presentation of information by any special interest group should always be viewed with skepticism, especially when there is an incentive for that opinion. Please, in your wisdom, elaborate on what you believe to be the incentive for anti-slaughter advocates other than to stop a cruel, unwanted, unnecessary and predatory business. We know the incentive for the AVMA: furthering the agenda of the coalition, of which they are a member, founded by the foreign owners of the now-shuttered domestic slaughterhouses that are currently sending horses to Mexico and Canada. Under the guise of concern for the welfare of the horses, this hypocritical organization attempts to deceive by stating that it is not pro-slaughter and yet spends millions on lobbying efforts to block passage of the AHSPA. If they are neutral on the issue, as they have attempted to make the public believe, they would have no stated position. One can not be neutral and continue to fund efforts on either side of an issue.
Would you have preferred that I said "Osama bin Laden is a good man because he has a following of millions"? The point is the same; dismissing the truths of history by disregarding what has been proven is the technique of those who do not wish to admit that their beliefs are based on falsehoods and some degree of brainwashing. The same can be said for pro-slaughter advocates.
Any veterianarian who advocates for horse slaughter has betrayed their charges in deference to human "masters" with questionable motives. Like it or not, the animals are not their first consideration despite protests to the contrary.
I am a medical professional too, Sir, and while I have often been presented with opinions in opposition to mine, medical, political or otherwise, I do not dismiss the holder of differing opinions as unworthy of my attention, as you seem to have done, or as lacking in thoughtfulness merely because I happen to disagree with that opinion or how it is expressed. Such a condescending attitude has no place in meaningful discussion.
You do not need to reply to me or this post. This discussion has degenerated into what anti-slaughter advocates have seen so often on other sites and it is getting a little old: stubborn refusal to grant any degree of validity to the opposition's viewpoint by disputing their every word. It might serve you well to look upon the proclamations of the AVMA and the reporters who you just cannot BELIEVE might be biased in the same light as you look upon us--skeptically. We know and admit our motives; what are theirs?
I have read more than enough. Have a good life.
Hi Theresa,
I remember meeting you in KC, I believe.
I respect your opinion and am glad to hear you have not thrown Dr. Lenz under the bus.
As you know, I am not the "pro-slaughter" monster some are trying to make me out to be. I do feel there has been a significant, and unintended, impact on the equine industry that is in part due to the removal of the slaughter market. As a result of this and many other economic factors (mainly feed and fuel), many more horses have been abused and neglected.
Mr. Holland's article would have the reader to believe it is only an economic (employment) problem, but the loss of a market price on horses cannot be ignored in the overall economic picture.
I agree that horses should not be bred for slaughter, and I don't know a single person who raises horses for that purpose. I mentioned I agree that the slaughter market hid the fact horses were overpopulated in one of my above posts.
I respect the fact you have been to a slaughter plant. However, despite all of the hidden videos and eyewitness reports on the internet, it is still a fact that a correctly placed penetrating projectile (captive bolt or bullet) results in the instantaneous death of a horse. I do not condone abuse in the process of euthanasia and I abhor the practice of "pithing" seen in some plants in Mexico.
We all want what is best for the horse. Unfortunately, and I think even the most ardent "anti-slaughter" poster will agree, that a quick and painless death is more humane than abandonment and starvation.
thank you Joyce Jacobson
Ms. Jacobson,
You cannot expect me to believe that your use of Hitler's name had anything to do with your argument other than making the implication I am a fascist murderer. You don’t help your argument by now using Bin Laden’s name.
“In my wisdom”, I can easily see the anti-slaughter movement moving on other livestock such as beef and pork. I am more convinced of this by your statement, “Any veterinarian who advocates for horse slaughter has betrayed their charges.” Do you feel that a veterinarian in the food animal arena has “betrayed their charges”?
As you can see by the frequency of my posts, I am not dismissing the majority of people offering differing opinion. I only dismiss those who are disrespectful or mix their opinion with personal attack (ie. Hitler and Bin Ladin).
To be honest, I find it humorous and enlightening to continue this type of dialog. I figure the longer I keep it up, the more people reading will see how misinformation and personal attacks are being used in an attempt to quiet people with different opinions and experiences.
Dr.Voris- where do you practice?I want to make sure I never have an emergency in that part of the state.
Ms. Snider,
I hope you never have an emergency in any part of the state. I guess you will have to add Columbia to your list with Wentzville as places to avoid with your horse.....
Sorry you feel that way.
Dr. voris- I have several vets in my area that are more than competent to treat my animals, and I dont have to worry about their attitudes. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I know several people who dont agree with my position, but they dont sport the condescending attitude that you have had with several people on this discussion board. Attitude is your problem. Not so much your opinion.
Ms. Linda Berardo,
I can clearly see you are not interested in a respectful or thoughtful dialog. I wish you good health and happiness. Have a nice day.
Your right I have no respect for someone that can make excuses for animal abuse. You have some reading material that was posted here. Read it and believe it. Go to an auction and see the pregnant mares, foals, yearlings, 2 to 10 year olds getting loaded on a truck to get brutally killed and butchered. I did. Go visit a feedlot, do a drive by and see the death pits of the ones that didn't make the journey to these hell holes. Go look at the horses standing in line going into a slaughter house. frantic, terrified, smelling death of others, being struck numerous times till maybe dead or passed out. You and others that make excuses and stories up to keep this heinous industry going should be ashamed of yourself. Animals are the innocents of this earth and we should be taking care of them, especially the ones we domesticated for ourselves.
You need to do some soul searching after you investigate this for yourself. Have a nice day and I wish you the courage to stand against horse slaughter.
Dr. Voris,
Did you read John Holland's post? "While Dr. Bonnie Beaver was telling Congress how wonderful the captive bolt gun was, her web masters were busy taking down the 2000 report on acceptable methods of euthanasia which said the captive bolt gun was unacceptable in equines and putting one up that said it was just peachy." What is it about this sentence you don't seem to understand? You must have selective eyesight.
As Dr. Jacobson stated, I don't know her but I completely and wholeheartedly agree with her most recent post. The bottom line you seem to continuously overlook is that horse slaughter is inhumane. Your statement "quick and painless death" is totally FALSE but you must be using this statement in your mind to condone the process of horse slaughter. Your dismissal of the facts is speaking LOUD AND CLEAR.
Please tell me how we can have a "thoughtful and knowledgeable discussion" when you want to ignore or overlook the facts? You just select what you want to question us about as a distraction so you don't have to confront facts. John Holland will respond to your questions.
Dr. Voris,
How revealing and disquieting a statement from you: "I find it humorous and enlightening to continue this type of dialog. I figure the longer I keep it up, the more people reading will see how misinformation and personal attacks are being used in an attempt to quiet people with different opinions and experiences."
Let us hope that the misinformation people see is the false statement in the article "The effect of those bans has rippled through the horse industry." You can make claims that people are "personally attacking" you because you have a difference of opinion. I can categorically state that my comments have nothing to do with you as a person. Your refusal to admit the facts because of your "different opinion and experience" is the real crux of the matter. The hard data, which you choose to disbelieve as you are now questioning the interpretation, is what hopefully will persuade those reading this board rather than your claims to engender sympathy. By the way, I still haven't seen any hard data from the pro-slaughter side.
Dr. Voris, it isn't just the actual slaughter process that bothers me. I agree that a properly placed bullet is the best way. Unfortunately when it comes to the captive bolt, therein lies the problem. At one plant, I counted four missed shots before the horse was sufficiently stunned by the fifth. My interpretation of the captive bolt method was that it worked best if the horse was restrained. These horses are not restrained. You will never convince me that horses are processed humanely at the rate of 300 to 400 per day.
The regulations related to transportation of slaughter-bound horses are a joke. I have been to many of the monthly sales throughout the state of Missouri and can't recall when I didn't see a violation. The sale barn owners don't care and there is no one to enforce them. As a matter of fact, the LMA has come out in opposition to current legislation banning the transportation of horses intended for slaughter for human consumption. It is very frustrating.
I believe that if you are breeding your horses responsibly and following that up with proper training, the loss of the slaughter plants won't affect you. And if you aren't doing those two things, and these folks know who they are, then get out of the industry because you are the ones who have brought us to this point.
I would like to see Missouri start up a euthanasia/disposal fund. Recently some friends, who were affected by the sub-prime nightmare and more recently a job layoff, were faced with the difficulty of putting down their daughter’s older gelding. Another woman, driving past my house, saw that we were doing some dirt work and stopped. Tearfully, she asked me if we would bury their horse, they had no money. Other states have started up these funds and in this economy, there isn’t a better time.
Ms. Snider,
I apologize if you feel I have a bad attitude. Since my original post complementing the author and defending people I personally respect, I have been:
1. Accused of neglecting my oath
2. Had my experience and knowledge mocked
3. Accused of taking blood money
4. Accused of living in the past with all of it’s atrocities
5. Called unethical
6. Told I should be pitied-twice
7. Condemned to hell
8. Accused of betraying my charges in deference to human masters
9. Called sickening and inhumane
10. Compared to Hitler and Bin Laden
11. Condemned for condoning brutality
12. Called untrustworthy
13. Accused of not helping my clients manage their horses
14. Given an elementary education on the English language
15. Had my name mocked
16. Accused of spouting BS
17. Accused of making excuses for animal abuse
18. Finally, I have been fired twice by people who don’t even know me.
If you find a post where I have used similar language, please point it out to me so I can issue an apology. I have never intended to attack anyone personally,