HORSE SLAUGHTER: BAD FOR HORSES, BAD FOR COMMUNITIES

Dont horse slaughter plants provide meaningful financial resources for their communities? In all three local communities where they operated, horse slaughterhouses had worn out their welcome. On August 15, 2005, the Kaufman, TX City Council, fed up with the ongoing problems from the Dallas Crown plants opening in 1986, voted unanimously to implement termination proceedings against the plant. Foreign-owned horse slaughterhouses operating in the U.S. repeatedly were fined for violations of local laws and creating sewage overflows. Horse slaughterhouses paid less local property tax than an average citizen in the community and minimal income taxthere is no import or export tariff on horsemeat and most, if not all, of the profits were sent back to the parent companies in France and Belgium. It is difficult for these communities to attract any new businesses because of the negative stigma created by these plants. As Paula Bacon, former mayor of Kaufman, TX said in an open letter to the U.S. Senate, As a community leader where we are directly impacted by the horse slaughter industry, I can assure you the economic development return to our community is negative. The foreign-owned companies profit at our expense -- it is time for them to go. Dont horse slaughterhouses provide employment? The final three foreign-owned plants in the U.S. collectively employed a sum total of less than 150 workers and those workers received poor pay and benefits. Many were immigrants working in an incredibly dangerous job because horses, in particular, are so flighty that they are difficult to stun properly before dismemberment. This dangerous environment, where workers wield sharp knives and deal with fractious horses, does not provide desirable employment. The employment opportunities related to the horse slaughter industry were vastly overshadowed by the direct harm to their employees, the enormous burden and harm they inflicted on their local communities, and the negative image they created for our country. Are there economic benefits to banning the slaughter of horses? At a minimum, a horse requires access to quality food (primarily hay and forage supplemented by grain and supplements, as appropriate), shelter from the elements, eight to 12 gallons of water per day, regular deworming, hoof care every six to eight weeks, annual dental care, twice yearly vaccinations, and basic tack and grooming equipment. Providing this basic care for a horse supports dozens of American farmers, manufacturing and service jobs and countless specialty industries that translate into stable, wellpaying jobs for U.S. workers. Dead horses do not benefit any of these businesses and do not contribute to the economy. Isnt American horsemeat a healthy, safe food for people who choose to eat it? No. Unlike cattle and pigs, who are raised for food, American horses receive a long list of substances over the course of their lives that make their flesh highly toxic to people who eat it. The European Union has enacted rules that require any country exporting horsemeat to the EU to take steps to prevent these substances from entering the EU food supply. Currently, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency requires that any person presenting a horse for slaughter certify in writing that the animal has not received these substances, either within 180 days of slaughter, or, for some substances, during the animals entire lifetime. One of these substances, Phenylbutazone or bute, is extremely common in the U.S. and is given to most American horses at some point during their lives; it is considered horse aspirin. When this common drug is used even once during the lifetime of the horse, the EU, CFIA as well as our own USDA and FDA regulations

prevent the horse from entering the food chain. This means that most American horses can be deemed unfit for slaughter if their meat is intended for human consumption. A recent audit by the European Union of Mexican plants that slaughtered American horses revealed an unacceptably high incidence of horses that were rejected due to toxic residues in their tissues. Didnt the General Accounting Office issue a report recommending a return to slaughter? The GAO report confirmed that the process of transporting horses to slaughter is unacceptably cruel. Horses are transported long distances in cramped and crowded conditions, and the federal government simply doesnt have the resources to effectively enforce the rules that are meant to protect horses during that process. Accordingly, the GAO recommended that one alternative to ending the suffering of horses is to permanently ban horse slaughter altogether. Will a ban on horse slaughter lead to an increase in horse abuse and starvation or neglect cases? No. In California, where horse slaughter was banned in 1998, there has been no corresponding rise in cruelty and neglect cases. In fact, horse theft has dropped in CA by 34% since enactment of the ban. There was no documented rise in Illinois following closure of the state's only horse slaughter plant in 2002. Further, allowing ones horse to starve is not an option state anti-cruelty laws prohibit such neglect. Isnt slaughter a necessary last resort for sick, old and "unwanted horses? No. 92.3% of horses arriving at slaughter plants in this country are in "good" condition, according to the USDAs Guidelines for Handling and Transporting Equines to Slaughter. Horses often arrive at slaughter after being purchased by killer buyers (middlemen hired by slaughterhouses to secure horses) who seek out healthy, fat horses who provide greater profits than older, leaner horses. The continued presence of killer buyers at U.S. horse auctions has actually prevented rescue of horses as these buyers routinely outbid rescuers and directly interfere with our ability to rescue horses. If slaughter is not an option, what will we do with sick, old and "unwanted horses? Since most horses arriving at slaughter plants were in good condition, most can be sold to a new owner and others will be kept longer by their current owner. Others will be absorbed by the rescue community. More than 400 horse rescue organizations operate around the country, and additional facilities are being establishedthese organizations are actively working to provide sanctuaries and solutions for any horses that would otherwise go to slaughter. For the small number unable to find a home or enjoy a good quality of life, a licensed veterinarian can provide humane euthanasia. Approximately 900,000 horses die annually in this country (10 percent of an estimated population of 9 million) and the vast majority are not slaughtered, but euthanized and rendered or buried. Humane euthanasia and carcass disposal is affordable and widely available. Horses who must be euthanized can be managed in a humane and costeffective manner. Wouldnt it be better to allow U.S. plants to operate so that we would have a humane alternative to the export of horses to Mexican and Canadian slaughterhouses? Even when horse slaughter plants were operating in the U.S., thousands of American horses were sent to Mexico and Canada for slaughter by these same methods every year. In 2006 when all three plants in the U.S. were operating, more than 37,000 horses were exported for slaughter. The plants located within the U.S. provided no guarantee of decent treatment and transport to those plants was just as agonizing. USDA records from the now-closed U.S. slaughter plants also document repeated incidents of horses denied water, horses whipped in the face, horses hit with electric prods, and horses who flipped over backward and were injured due to rough and abusive handling. Incidents of heavily pregnant mares giving birth to foals on the

killing floor have been documented. The answer is not to return to subjecting our horses to abuse and unacceptable conditions at plants in the U.S., but to ban horse slaughter and the export of horses for slaughter altogether and provide our horses with a decent life and, when necessary, a peaceful death. Isnt slaughter a form of humane euthanasia? No. Horse slaughter is a far cry from humane euthanasia. Euthanasia means a gentle, painless death provided in order to prevent suffering. Horse slaughter is a death fraught with terror, pain, and suffering. Horses can be shipped for more than 24 hours at a time in crowded cattle trucks without food, water, or rest. Pregnant mares, foals, and injured horses must endure the journey. Recent undercover footage from Canada shows horses being shot multiple times before they die; one draft horse had to be shot 11 times before it was killed. Because horses are skittish by nature, it is particularly difficult to ensure the captive bolt gun renders them unconscious. When no other options exist, horses should be humanely euthanized by a licensed veterinarian, rather than placed on a truck, cruelly transported, and then butchered. The vast majority of horse owners already provide humane euthanasia for their older or ill horses. Dont existing transport regulations provide strong protection for horses being shipped to slaughter? Regulations are only as good as the enforcement behind them. According to a recent Office of the Inspector Generals report, these regulations are not strictly enforced. The current regulations allow horses to be shipped for no more than 28 hours without food, water or rest. Horse who are unable to bear weight on all four limbs or are unable to walk unassisted are to be prevented from making the trip to the slaughterhouse, as are horse who are blind in more than one eye, are less than 6 months of age, or who are likely to give birth during the trip. The kill buyers are given the responsibility for making these assessments, knowing full well that arriving with less than a full load will cut into their profits. Eleven slaughter-bound horses were killed in a May 18, 2010 accident on a freeway in Oklahoma. Sadly, accidents like this are all too common, yet those who engage in the predatory horse slaughter industry show little concern for the welfare of animals being transported. The owner of the horses who survived the Oklahoma accident demanded their return so they could complete their journey to the slaughter plants. What does the American public think? Poll after poll shows that Americans want this practice to end. A recent national poll conducted in January of 2012 revealed that 80% of Americans are strongly in favor of a horse slaughter ban. The Agricultural Appropriations Bill signed into law in November of 2011 did not contain defunding language to prevent at least 5 million American tax dollars per year from funding USDA inspections of horsemeat. This has opened the door for horse slaughter to return to states that do not have laws banning horse slaughter. If there is a ban on horse slaughter, will horsemeat no longer be available for pet food? No. The practice of using horsemeat in pet food was stopped decades ago after protections were enacted for America's wild horses in 1971. The public and Congress were outraged to learn federal agencies were rounding up and allowing the exploitation and slaughter of these national treasures for items such as pet food. Pet food in the U.S. does not contain horsemeat. If horse slaughter is banned, will this impact the ability of zoos to feed their big cats? No. Zoos will be able to continue to feed horse meat to their big catsefforts to ban horse slaughter only apply to slaughter for human consumption. However, very few facilities have ever used horsemeat and there is a growing trend to feed a beefbased diet to captive big cats. Most USDA-licensed facilities that keep big cats like lions and tigers have switched to such diets because it is a healthier alternative for these species. Horses are routinely treated with wormers and many drugs that are prohibited for use in animals raised for food.