-
Slaughterplant
statistics show us that that less than 1% (actually about
.07%) of horses are slaughtered. This tiny percentage will
hardly increase the current population.
-
In
1990, approximately 350,000 horses were slaughterd. This dropped
to approximately 40,000 in 2002. This drop of 310,000
did not effect the current horse population in any drastic
way; why would another 40,000?
-
In
the drop from 1990 to 2002, there was no notable increase
in horse abuse or neglect as the 'horses will suffer without
slaughter' argument states.
-
Between
1992 and 1993, the number of horses slaughtered dropped by
79,000. There was no negative effect on the
horse population from this. Eliminating horse slaughter would
result in a drop of just 40,000 horses.
-
"Horses
will be abused or starved if horse slaughter stops."
This argument assumes that horse slaughter currently prevents
starvation or abuse, without providing any proof! Look at
any horse rescue online-- you will see countless horses that
have been abused, ill-treated, or starved. Horse slaughter
didn't save them.
We can use California to see what happens when horse slaugher
stops-- not much. No one has found any proof that horse abuse
or starvation increased as a result of the ban of
horse slaughter in California. In fact, the ban appeared
to have a positive affect for horses-- horse
theft dropped by a whopping 34%. It is no secret that slaughterplants
and killer buyers provide a quick way for theives to make
a quick buck from stollen horses.
-
What
will be done with the bodies? There are 6.9 million horses.
Less than .07%-- that's less than half a percent-- are 'processed'
in slaughter plants. Handling so few horses (as compared with
the rest of the equine population) is hardly a concern. Bodies
can be handled as they currently are, or they can be rendered.
Unwanted horses-- if
the 1% or less that we are talking about is, or ever becomes,
a problem-- can always be rendered.
Rendering is the process of making horses into fertilizer or
pet food (see this page).This can be done humanely, as by
law renderers cannot haul live horses. They can come and pick
up dead bodies of horses that have been euthanized humanely.
But what
about people who can't afford to humanely euthanize their horses?
I have yet to hear of even one case in which an owner sent a
horse to slaughter because they were unable to afford to shoot
it in the head or have it euthanized by a veterinarian. Everyone
I have known that has sent horses to slaughter has done it for
some quick cash, or they were too impatient (horse was stubborn,
in one case, in another had broken its leg and was 'useless'
and owner got a few hundred from him). Horse bodies can be disposed
via rendering plants, which can
use already-dead horses to make products like pet food, bone
meal, and fertilizer.
The argument
that says horse slaughter prevents abuse is essentially saying
we should kill the horse to prevent it from being abused--
Would anyone make such an argument about dog abuse, or child
abuse? The only way for this to work would be to kill all
horses, then there would be none left to abuse. People who abuse
and starve horses do it now, with horse slaughter.
Ending slaughter isn't going to change their views or abusive
actions.
If people
didn't provide killer buyers with an easy way to rid themselves
of horses, they might be more careful about purchasing horses
they might not be able to sell. If anything, slaughter makes
it easy for people to breed an excess of horses by giving them
an easy way to dispose of them. It also makes it easy for people
to abuse horses, by providing a way to dispose of abused horses.
I know
of two cases in which slaughter has encouraged
horse abuse. One person owned a very old cutting stallion, beyond
his useful years. He was used for breeding, but then injured
his hind leg and could not be used as a stud. His owner would
have put him down, but thanks to a local killer buyer, she decided
to get $400 for him instead. If slaughter wasn't an option,
the horse could have ended his life peacefully, instead of making
a long journey on an injured leg to die a horrific death. Slaughter
gave her the option of being irresponsible and inhumane, and
getting paid for it.
In another case, there
was a young but spirited horse. The trainer was impatient, and
I hate to say it, had a very bad temper. She told me if the
horse didn't start learning, she would ship him to a killer
buyer. I asked why she wouldn't just sell him to someone else.
She said she might, but she didn't want to waste time working
with him or training him as he was dangerous, when it was easier
for her to sell to a killer buyer right away. Why would she
waste her time and risk getting injured when a killer buyer
could give her a few hundred dollars for the horse, right away?
Instead of being responsible and training, selling, or humanely
euthanizing a dangerous horse, slaughter offers owners another
option, and pays them for it. Which one do you think irresponsible
horse owners are going to choose?
