Steven Long, Editor
Texas Horse Talk Magazine
It's the Economics of the Thing
By Amy Backo

On August 21, 2006, the Greater Houston Horse Council adopted a resolution
to "Enthusiastically support the passage of the American Horse Slaughter
Prevention Act and any other measure that opposes the slaughter of all
equines for human consumption. " While this is admittedly an emotional issue,
removing emotion from the debate still leaves multiple facts which seem to
indicate that banning the slaughter would be beneficial for the horse
industry as a whole. The majority of horse slaughter in the U.S. takes place
in Texas.

Like many in the horse industry, I grew up with the idea that horse
slaughter was a "necessary evil". Those in favor of horse slaughter like to
use that term a lot. Seems the one thing both sides can agree on is the
"evil" part. That leaves us with the "necessary". Is it necessary? After
several years of pouring over statistics and market trends I came to the
conclusion that it isn't.

Thirty years ago, there were no plants slaughtering horses for human
consumption in the U.S. Instead, rendering plants operated and provided meat
and byproducts mostly for the pet industry. Consumers eventually rejected
pet food with horse meat in it-can you remember the last time you saw a can?
Foreign companies, meanwhile, saw an opportunity and jumped in while nobody
was paying attention. In the 1980's, there were sixteen plants in the U.S.
slaughtering horses for human consumption. At their peak, they slaughtered
350,000 horses in one year alone-1989. At this time, we have only three
left; last year, they killed 90,000 horses.

So what happened in the past thirty years, that would make some horsemen
think our industry depends on these foreign-owned businesses so much we can
no longer do without them? Why are there only three left? Was this a
"hit-and-run" by foreign corporations? Do we really want the health of the
horse industry in the U.S. to be dependent on the price of meat in Europe
and Asia? More importantly, is it? In a nutshell, no.

The horse industry is so very huge-200,000 horses in the Houston area alone,
for example-that if the three remaining plants shut down tomorrow the
industry as a whole would probably not even notice. Opponents of the ban
have several arguments, one of which is the myth that "unwanted horses"
would have no place to go. Did you know that 92.3 % of horses arriving at
slaughter plants in this country are perfectly healthy, according to the
USDA's own statistics? These horses were not unwanted; if they were, the
plants would not have had to buy them. These horses were for sale, and the
kill buyers happened to win the bid.

Are there really too many horses? Do we have an over breeding problem? Last
year the horse slaughter plants imported more than 7,000 horses from Canada
to fill their quotas. We have an over breeding problem in one respect only:
As long as the horse slaughter plants are in operation, anyone can throw a
few mares and a stallion out into a pasture and breed more horses without
fear of consequence, because the plants are a guaranteed market for the
lowest common denominator, meat on the hoof.

What if you were a breeder competing for the entry-level buyer with another
guy down the road who never spent money on a farrier, vet, worming,
training, feed, supplies, etc? Could that guy churn out a product for less
money than you could and still make a profit? You bet, if you're the one
spending money on all that stuff and he's not. But he has a guaranteed
market-meat on the hoof.

Having the availability of a slaughterhouse doesn't keep prices up, rather,
it reduces the floor price to an artificial lowest common denominator,
because it leaves out all the other facets of the industry. If there truly
is an over breeding problem, trying to stop it without closing that
guaranteed market is like trying to hold back the incoming tide with a
sponge.

Aha! Say the opponents of the ban, but all the rescues are full! This may or
may not be true, but remember, any rescue will be full simply by virtue of
its existence; give someone a rescue to send their "unwanted" horse to and
they will. Bear in mind that many horses in rescues come from one of two
places - seizures, and owner donations. An owner donates a horse he or she
doesn't want to sell for whatever reason, including to a kill buyer. Seized
horses are normally starving and the plants don't want them anyway.
To think that rescues will be needed to take in all those horses that
"might" have gone to slaughter is a fallacy. Given the size of the horse
population, they should be simply reabsorbed; there has been no statistical
increase in the number of neglected horses since that peak of 1989. Most of
us know someone with at least one horse who doesn't actually "do" anything.
Speaking of abuse, if you bring a skinny horse to the Beltex, or
Dallas-Crown, slaughter plants here in Texas you'll have to pay them fifty
bucks to take it off your hands.

Seems to me the cost of a bullet is cheaper, never mind all that gas money
hauling the horse there. Of course, any law enforcement officer who works
animal cruelty and neglect cases will tell you that a person is either
inclined to commit cruelty - or he isn't. It is an altered mentality that
allows a person to let an animal (or a child) starve to death. It does no
good to have a kill auction available to dump the horses if the owner's not
going to haul them there anyway.

So, will the ban result in an increase in horses being shipped to Mexico and
Canada?

A provision in the ban outlaws export for slaughter; given that there will
always be people willing to break laws it still isn't economically feasible
in this case for them to do so. There is only one reason the Mexican plants,
for instance, want U.S. horses: They are shipping the processed meat back to
the Port of Houston (or other U.S. Ports) for export and putting the coveted
"USA" stamp on it. If the AHSPA passes, they lose their ability to do this
and they lose any incentive they ever had to buy American horses when they
already have plenty of their own.

The GHHC acted, as it should, to take a position more in line with the
beliefs of the horse owners it was formed to represent. It is highly
doubtful the American public will ever embrace the idea of killing horses
for delicacies to grace restaurant tables half a world away. Representative
Jim Moran of Virginia said in a speech to Congress: "What is the difference
between a horse and a steer and a hog? The horse is an icon along with the
bald eagle. What is the difference between a bald eagle and a pigeon or a
turkey? And if you do not know the difference, we cannot explain it to you."
The Greater Houston Horse Council was for a long time the only American
Horse Council affiliate in the state. The official position of the American
Horse Council, GHHC's parent organization, is to remain neutral on the
issue; in effect, to do nothing. An unfortunate, but understandable position
considering the divergent views of its membership, which includes the AQHA,
which is opposed to the act, and the Jockey Club, which favors it.
One can only hope that organizations such as the AQHA and the American
Association of Equine Practitioners, poll their own membership and discover
that its thinking on the subject is much like the majority of horsemen, and
for that matter, the overwhelming majority of Americans.

The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act is House bill number HR503 and
Senate bill number S1915. For more information, there are many online
websites dedicated to the issue. Two I like are www.horse-protection.org
<http://www.horse- protection. org/> and www.marynash.org
<http://www.marynash .org/> . I encourage all horse enthusiasts to do their
own research and make an informed decision, whichever side of the issue they
find themselves on. Best wishes and many happy trails out there to you all.
Enjoy your horse, a true American icon.

Amy Backo, Xanadu Farm Trakehners
Navasota, TX

Back to Publications>>