|
The horse industry in America has finally recognized that the issue of unwanted horses needs attention – but many organizations are adamant that horse slaughter should remain as one option for dealing with unwanted horses.
The industry launched an “Unwanted Horse Coalition” in 2005. After more than a year of meetings, the coalition was folded into the American Horse Council, the industry’s national trade association, in mid-2006. Although it’s too soon to know what will come of this activity, some industry groups participating in the coalition insist on retaining horse slaughter as a method of disposing of unwanted horses.
Even Dr. Tom Lenz, a widely respected equine veterinarian who is leading the Unwanted Horse Coalition, is among those who have publicly called horse slaughter “extremely humane.” [Source: DVM Newsmagazine, Jan. 1, 2004.]
The Paradox
This underscores the paradox at play here: Well-meaning, good-hearted people who want to reduce the number of unwanted horses, yet at the same time argue that slaughter is an acceptable form of “humane euthanasia.”
It is deeply troubling that the largest veterinary associations – the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the American Veterinary Medical Association – actually support horse slaughter by describing it as “humane euthanasia.” Everyone else in the industry who supports the practice points to the veterinary associations’ position as proof that slaughtering a horse is humane.
It’s not. To claim that killing a horse in a slaughterhouse is “humane euthanasia” is absurd. It insults our intelligence.
What’s the most puzzling aspect of all this? You would think veterinary associations would argue that veterinarian-administered clinical euthanasia is the only humane method, not just for moral and ethical reasons, but also because veterinarians have an economic interest in providing euthanasia services.
The Horse Welfare Coalition
More than 200 horse industry groups, from breed organizations to the veterinary associations, recently came together to form the “Horse Welfare Coalition” with the sole purpose of opposing legislation banning horse slaughter.
Here’s how the Horse Welfare Coalition frames the issue:
“When an aging horse becomes crippled, [horse owners] decide that the most humane treatment for this animal they have owned for years is death. They don't want to shoot it nor do they want it to die in a pasture to be eaten by buzzards. The best choice is often to sell the horse to a slaughterhouse that is regulated by USDA, and, in doing so, be paid a sum of money which can be put back into their land and livestock operations.” [Source: Horse Welfare Coalition, commonhorsesense.com]
Notice the assumption is that the horse is a) old and b) crippled, which a visit to an auction house will tell you is generally not the case. But more important, note that humane euthanasia by a veterinarian is not even considered as an option. The “best choice” is to send the old, lame horse you’ve owned for years to slaughter! Folks, please ... call your veterinarian.
At some point – perhaps in 2007 – we expect Congress will finally pass the legislation to ban horse slaughter. Once that happens, we hope all this industry attention and energy will be re-directed from opposing a ban on slaughter to a genuine effort to improve the welfare of horses.
Horse Slaughter Is Only A Symptom
In the end, horse slaughter is only a symptom of the unwanted horse problem. Although misguided, supporters of horse slaughter are right about one thing: Banning the practice doesn’t address the underlying causes. Indeed, without horse slaughter, there will be 100,000 unwanted horses each year who have no place to go. The debate needs to move beyond the pros and cons of horse slaughter to an industry-wide effort to reduce those numbers as fast as possible.
There is much work for all of us in the horse community to do. But it starts with rethinking our relationship with these wonderful animals.
top
|
