The Overpopulation Debate / Why Slaughter?

What educational report on horse slaughter would be complete without mention of the most often debated slaughter-related subject - overpopulation...? If you have "been around" in Internet rescue circles for any period of time, chances are, you have seen it divide rescuer from rescuer and, alienate many a good person (who may happen to breed, either on a large scale or a small one). Chances are, you have witnessed flame wars on mailing lists because of this, too.
"United we stand, divided we fall."..."Come, let us reason together."

We could find no evidence anywhere, no matter whom we asked or where we asked it, to lend credence to overbreeding in general being a contributing factor (major or minor) to horse slaughter in the United States. Each time we inquired, all we received as feedback was nothing but myths and emotionalism, along with outright prejudice (for example, the offensive term, "back-yard breeder"). Please keep in mind that we are not talking about the Premarin industry, which we all know breeding is leading to slaughter, and not very much more, in spite of at least one good program placed in effect by Wyeth/Ayerst (see our page on Premarin).

On the other hand, we found there to be more than adequate statistics to show that "overbreeding" is a misconception as an act that directly leads to the slaughter of our precious horses.

We present for your consideration, excerpts from different e-mail list discussions, a "debate" on the issue of overpopulation, rescue's Big O.

A writer asks on Act Now on Yahoogroups:
I just can't help but ask, how does impregnation, whether natural or artificial, have any impact whatsoever on whether or not a horse ends up in a slaughterhouse? How does simply giving birth to a foal have any bearing on whether or not that foal goes to slaughter?

Roberta Stone's reply on the Act Now list, circa 2000:

It doesn't! Any more than the birth of a human baby has any bearing on whether or not that child will be murdered at some point in its life. Let's look at a small portion of foals born. My stallion's daddy sired 46 foals in his lifetime, all born between 1969 and 1983. I traced most of those foals back around 1990, when slaughter figures were extremely high, so those horses had a bigger chance of going to slaughter than the horses do today.
Out of the 46, I found only one that *may* have gone to slaughter. The last registered owner told me that he had taken the horse to New Holland Sales, and I was unable to trace her beyond that. (He didn't know that NH was a hotbed of killer buyers).
Only *one,* the stud's first foal, was a victim of serious neglect. She was starved almost to death, while pregnant, in 1987, at age 18. (We rescued her.) Those that I could confirm were dead died of things like colic, natural causes, or accident. One for example, died from Potomac Fever, before there was a vaccine for it, one crashed a wire fence, and couldn't be saved. One that was living when I did that search has since died of old age, buried with honor on the farm where he spent his retirement years, owned by a Catholic Diocese.
It would make no sense to say that none of those foals should ever have been born, *just because* one went to slaughter, and one was neglected later in life. It also would make no sense to say that those two were unwanted or excess horses, because *I* wanted them. I was just too late for one, fortunately in time for the other. It also would make no sense to say that it was the breeder's fault that those two were slaughtered or neglected. The one that may have gone to slaughter went *12 years* after foaling. The one that was neglected was neglected *after* the breeder was already dead and gone. It makes no sense to say those two should never have been born, because for 12 and 18 years, respectively, those horses were well cared for by the various people that had owned them, and had done their respective jobs as show and riding horses, and given those owners much pleasure and enjoyment. The mare that was neglected went on to give *me* much pleasure and enjoyment, for another 12 years. She died quietly at the end of her 31st summer on earth.
So what happened here? One probably went to slaughter only because the owner didn't know better than to send the horse to that auction, *and* because someone was perfectly willing to buy that horse and kill it so someone else could eat it. If there were no slaughterhouses killing horses for people to eat, the horse might have lived a long life. But instead, through a *combination* of circumstances, that horse became the victim of human predators. The other mare, the neglected one, was a victim of a very bad owner who was also a well known and respected trainer. No matter. He thought the mare didn't take when he bred her, so he threw her out to live or die on sparse pasture.
My point here is that the 2 out of 46 that got into trouble got there because of *humans.* Human innocence, human predators, and human cruelty. It had nothing to do with horses being in excess, or overpopulation or overbreeding. It would probably have happened even if there had been a shortage of horses.

Who ever, ever in the world, took their horses to a slaughterhouse or sold their horse to a killer buyer because they felt that there were too many horses in the world?
Very good question!! Good way to look at it, too.

Horse meat is a delicacy. The fewer horses slaughtered, the more sought after the delicacy will become. When it comes to food, the average consumer, even with a delicacy, will only continue to buy up to a certain price point. Demand for horse meat is already on the wane, both due to price, and due to the fact that apparently the younger generations in horse meat-eating countries are not looking at the horse as a food animal, but more as a companion animal. Some of the lessened demand is due to the scares in both Europe and Japan over trichinellosis after the severe outbreaks a few years ago.

Terry Watt of Arizona has been a hard working soldier in the battle to end horse slaughter for human consumption. For many years, Terry believed that there was an overpopulation problem and that overbreeding was the most to blame for it. Terry has since seen the light and as she does on the American Horse Defense Fund's e-mail list on Topica groups, she makes some very good points:

In a message dated 4/6/2005 6:26:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, blazingsaddles@zzzzz.com writes:
I tend to agree. Here's pro-slaughter's argument "we provide a service to dispose of America's unwanted horses (overpopulation) - that would otherwise be left to starve or be abandoned."

In looking at the overall population of horses in the US, nearly 7 million, only 65,000 go to slaughter annually, according to my calculator this is 9/10's of 1 percent of our national herd population. This is the number pro-slaughter (AVMA/AAEP) has designated as the overpopulation. However, if there were only one slaughterhouse in the US and it's capacity for slaughter was 20,000 horses annually then this would be the designated number of "unwanted" horses - the overpopulation count. If there were 4 slaughterhouses with a combined capacity to slaughter 100,000 annually, then this would be the designated overpopulation number of (unwanted) horses.

The numbers of the overpopulation problem perceived by the AVMA/AAEP are based on the number of horses the three slaughterhouses are capable of slaughtering, they are set by the slaughterhouses. Going by their calculations, in the 80's we were running at approximately 300,000 unwanted horses annually - or an overpopulation of 300,000, because this was the capacity of the US slaughterhouses at that time.

My opinion is that the whole problem lies in auctions. Without auctions killer buyers would be pressed to find their product. And the luck of the draw for any horse sold by it's owner through an auction is, how many people showed up that day to buy a horse and did that horse meet any of those buyers requirements. Chances are had the horse not sold (no killer buyers present), and then was run through the following weekend's auction, the buyer for that horse may be there that weekend, or the following weekend, etc.

Had the owner taken the time to advertise and show the horse to prospective buyers until he found a buyer, the horse would not be in AVMA/AAEP's overpopulation/unwanted horse statistics.

The base problem I see doesn't lie in breeding but in each horse owners responibility to actively market his horse for sale - not take the quick, whatever I can get at the auction route, just to move the horse quickly. Setting minimum starting bid prices at auctions would eliminate the killer buyers profits. Unfortunately that would also eliminate lower priced horses available to the public, except those that are advertised in the classifieds.

I personally feel that horses should be banned from 'livestock' auctions. Horse sales - auctions put on by reputable organizations or farms/ranches should be the only 'auction' venue available for horse owners and killer buyers should be banned from attending.

End horses going through low-end livestock auctions and I'd bet the farm the slaughterhouses would go bankrupt, just as is happening in the UK right now due to the mandatory "horse passports" going into effect last month. (This was written in early April, 2005)

We must monitor the UK's horse welfare statistics now because there's the same concern over there that we hear here, that without slaughter, horses will be abandoned and neglected. If that doesn't happen, like it didn't happen in California, then we have the perfect example to counter and contradict AVMA/AAEP's concerns for the US, if they are indeed true concerns.

As far as supply and demand goes, look at what's happened to the price of lobster and crab legs over the last 20 years, they can't even list them on restaurant menus anymore, it's "market price, ask your server."

In response to Terry's comments, Keith asks several very good questions:
You make some great points, Terry. I'll be interested to hear what the panelist at the Unwanted Horse Summit has to say about the situation in California. If there is already history on which to base a prediction about what will happen to horses when slaughter is ended, why isn't AVMA/AEEP looking at that? We shouldn't need to wait to look to UK to see what happens there.

I agree that the auctions are an easy outlet for slaughter, which, if eliminated, would reduce the number of slaughtered horses. (USESR NOTE: We cannot outlaw auctions. Terry's response to this post explains how auctions themselves cannot be to blame for horses going from there to slaughter) I also agree with Andrew that the number of horses greater than the number of good homes equals the horses at risk for going to slaughter - and that that number is always changing. Actually, I'm not sure it's changing - I believe the ESTIMATIONS change, based on who is doing the estimating, and how.

What is inconceivable to me is how the vet community can make a decision to support the continuation of slaughter without conducting a scientific study and arriving at a "true", i.e. valid number. As Terry pointed out, their estimate of unwanted horses is simply the number of horses slaughtered. I suppose you could add to that the number of horses rescued due to neglect, etc...although you could argue that those horses are not unwanted, just not properly placed, yet.

I think placement is the key to this whole situation - matching the right horses with the right owners. Auctions circumvent that process - the horse never has a chance to find the right home. I really believe that if slaughter was ended (or slaughterhouses put out of business), the vast majority of healthy horses would find the right home - it just might take owners a little longer to dispose of their property. Unhealthy/unsound/aged horses would be euthanized with the dignity they deserve, instead of being eaten. But believing this and PROVING it are two different things.

We have a real challenge to build a placement network that can prove it can absorb the horses that are now being eaten. The Alternatives book is a great first step (USESR NOTE: The writer is referring to a book produced by the American Horse Defense Fund which can be purchased on their site)- but it can't get out to the masses , and I don't believe many of the masses will want to take the trouble to research the best way to find the right home for their horse - unless they are unaware that the auctions will lead to their horse's death, and can be so educated. I think rescues will play an even larger role in horse placement, only because they are the only established "institution" that deals with taking in unwanted horses and finding good homes for them.

A nationwide online database of rescues and other organizations (all the ones listed in the Alternatives book), that are willing to take in horses, which could be updated weekly with the organizations' available adoption slots, and searched by a horse owner looking to find their horse a new home, might be a big help. If an owner could go on the net and search for all the possible available placement options in their state, before taking the horse to an auction, don't you think they would? If such a database could be built, with oversight by a well-known humane group like ASPCA, don't you think it would be promoted heavily on a regular basis, in all the horse publications, breed registry magazines and websites, USEF, AHC, etc.

One other statistic that needs to be studied - if 300k horses were being slaughtered in the 80's, what percentage of the horse population did that represent? And what has happened to the other 230,000 horses/year that are no longer being slaughtered? Why have the numbers gone down? Is it solely due to decreased slaughterhouse capacity (and if so, where have the horses gone?), are fewer horses being bred, are the rescues absorbing them, or are they being placed into good homes? Surely they all are not being neglected, so the argument that less/no slaughter will lead to more neglect doesn't hold water. All those excess horses have gone somewhere, or there have been fewer excess horses bred. Whichever is the case, shouldn't those factors be looked at for solutions to deal with the remaining 65k "unwanted" horses?

Terry replies to Keith's post, above:

In the 80's we had a lot more slaughterhouses operating in the US. As each closed the numbers of horses slaughtered went down accordingly. This alone proves AVMA/AAEP etc, wrong. We suddenly didn't have an excess of 300,000 unwanted horses to deal with any more than we had 300,000 horse carcasses to dispose of. It proves the number of "unwanted" horses is established by how many horses the operating slaughterhouses can process.

The "option" factor for horse owners: killer buyers need to fill their trucks, they bid against regular horse buyers at auctions, they bid against rescuers trying to keep horses from going to slaughter. This isn't providing a service of disposing of unwanted horses. These are business men seeking a raw product to resell to the manufacturers of horse steaks for export. If slaughter were really just an "option" for horse owners then all slaughterhouse middlemen should be doing is opening a business and putting out a sign and taking out ads, "we pay $___ per pound" and if a horse owner truly wants to sell his horse to slaughter this is where they'd take their horse, not to auction. Then you could call slaughter both a service and an option. Not too many people just call up a killer buyer to come buy their horse/s. Could you find them listed in the yellow pages? I couldn't. Only those in the know who are in the "livestock" (or rescue) business would know how to call a killer buyer, not your average horse owner. If your horse needed euthanasia, say it was severely foundered, your choices are, we're told, to call a vet to euthanize or sell to a killer buyer. But how can we reach the killer? We'd actually have to take our horse - that needs to be euthanized - to an auction to sell it. Who takes a horse that needs euthanizing to an auction??

As far as the numbers of "unwanted" horses that rescuers have, it'd have to be broken down as to why they have them. Some are neglect cases, some abuse cases, some are rescued at auction from going to slaughter buyers. Rescuers could spend their time, money, and resources on neglected and abused horse cases (and we have laws on the books to deal with their owners) and they could quit worrying about trying to save horses from slaughter if slaughter were banned or auctions didn't allow killer buyers on their properties. And horse owners who have neglected their horses would not be financially rewarded by taking their neglected horses to sell at auction, bypassing abuse laws, they would either have to take care of their horses or face prosecution for animal abuse. Slaughter promotes neglect, it devalues horses because of the mentality it promotes: there's always the meat man.

On the other hand, why would a healthy horse need euthanasia? Because it was never trained properly? Isn't that kinda like people dumping dogs at shelters because of training issues? They bark too much, they chew too much, they dig too much, they aren't housebroken... etc. Do those dogs deserve death because of irresponsible, lazy, or unknowledgeable owners? There's no difference with horses and this is another reason why horses are taken to auction and trained horses are going to sell to the public before the untrained - so the irresponsible owner sealed the fate of his horse by not having it properly trained. And the other thing is perfectly healthy well trained horses going to killer buyers at auctions because the number of horses for sale on any given day can be more than the number of buyers there to buy on any given day - not everyone buys horses at auctions, people answer classifieds and breeder display ads - they ride and try the horse out before buying, they shop around. If you hold a garage sale do you expect to sell everything you have out there? What if not enough people show up that day to buy everything, maybe you'd hold another sale the following weekend. Garage sales don't have the local landfill showing up to buy their excess stuff, but the auctions have killer buyers there to fill their trucks.

Some horses end up as neglect cases because of divorce or loss of a job, it would help if we had an 800# for such family emergencies so that the horses don't have to suffer. If someone suddenly loses their income and can't afford hay and can't place the horses quickly enough, maybe we could have a network where someone in dire straits could get some temporary help. Rescuers tell me they get calls from people just needing to get rid of their horse and the rescuers can't just up and take in these horses, but we should offer help to these people - find out their circumstances, can they afford to feed while new owners are found, etc, and direct them or help them with classified ads etc to get those horses to new owners instead of just saying "sorry, I can't take your horse." Keep the horse in it's present location if possible, help with hay if necessary, and help that owner market the horse.

In the UK the slaughter companies say they haven't gotten a single horse in a month since the horse passports went into effect. Where are all of the UK's "unwanted" horses going? One thing we know for sure right now is, they're not going to slaughter.

More logic from Terry, in a seperate post:

For the 2 years Cavel was closed due to their fire, there was no reported increase in abandoned horses or neglect cases even though the US horse slaughter industry was technically cut by one third - a slaughterhouse can only "process" so many horses per week. AAEP should explain that.

During those 2 years did we have 1/3 less unwanted horses and now that Cavel is back operating we have more unwanted horses?

From Trina Bellak, of the American Horse Defense Fund:

Thanks Terry. I want to see AAEP say there is no infrastructure (alternatives) after they see our book. We dont need a new bureaucracy to manage "unwanted" horses, just resources and people wiling to avail themselves of them. AAEP should be pushing and educating their owners about these rather than opposing a bill to end the torture and brutal killing. (another referral to the book on Alternatives to Slaughter, by the AHDF)

>From Terry Watt:

AHC's statistics are not nearly complete, I have 2 horses in my yard, one of my neighbors has 7, another has 3, etc etc. AHC did not contact us and we didn't fill out an AHC survey, we don't belong to any breed or event association, I'd say about 4 of these horses are registered, so most of the horses in my neighborhood have not been counted by AHC, as I'm sure many many others, along with their owners, have not. I don't know how they came to their conclusions other than going by breed & event organization and association members/registrations.
Here's AHC's statistics (and an AAEP related article below) -

How Many People are Involved in the Horse Industry?

There are 7.1 million Americans involved in the industry as horse owners, service providers, employees and volunteers.

• 4.3 million individuals participate in recreation activities
• 3.6 million individuals participate in showing
• With some overlap in cases of people who participate in both showing and recreation.
• 1.9 million people own horses
• 941,000 people participated in racing in either a professional or volunteer capacity
• In addition to the people actually involved in the industry, tens of millions more Americans participate as spectators.
• The median income for horse owning households is $60,000
• 14% of horse-owning households have incomes under $25,000
• 38% of horse-owning households have incomes under $50,000
• 64% of horse-owning households have incomes under $75,000

How Many Horses are There?

There are 6.9 million horses in the U.S., including both commercial and recreational horses.

• 2,970,000 and recreation
• 1,974,000 are used in showing
• 1,262,800 are used in other activities, such as farm and ranch work, rodeo, polo, police work, etc.
• 725,000 of those horses are involved in racing and race horse breeding

Posted: 4/8/2005 3:36:00 PM ET

AAEP opposes slaughter bill again; bill moved from agriculture committee

Just two weeks before its “Summit on Unwanted Horses” April 19 in Washington, D.C., the American Association of Equine Practitioners issued a position paper explaining its opposition to H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act presently before the United States House of Representatives.

"While H.R. 503 and its supporters are well intentioned, the passage of this legislation, without adequate funding or an infrastructure in place to care for unwanted horses, will create a series of unintended consequences that negatively impact the health and welfare of the horse," the paper states. "Therefore, the AAEP opposes H.R. 503 as it is currently written."

(most of this article has been removed)

.—Bill Heller

Help Us Rescue "WANTED" horses.