Numbers indicate a slowdown in slaughter in the U.S. is already a big contributor to horse overpopulation. In 1996, the American Horse Council estimated the population at 6.9 million. By their 2005 study, it was up to 9.2 million. That's a 2.3 million increase in eight years--and it's not all from breeding. It's also due to the decline of horses being taken out of the population. (For instance, in 1989, 342,877 were slaughtered; in 2002, the number was 42,312.)
We certainly haven't added 2.3 million new buyers or adopters for those horses (that number is estimated to be 100,000). If we had, the slaughter industry probably wouldn't exist. So the horses' futures go from grim (but regulated and overseen by such organizations as the American Veterinary Medical Association), to grimmer.
I've seen and reported equine victims of neglect. Horses that were foundered and undernourished to the point they couldn't get up to get to water or shade. It's not pretty. There are thousands of them out there now. What will happen if/when we take away an admittedly unsavory outlet, but one that offers a quick, regulated death (yes, I've seen the slaughter videos) rather than a long, drawn-out one filled with much more suffering?
I am against the slaughter of horses. And, I'm against inhumane transport of horses top slaughter. But the slaughter industry is a symptom of a much bigger problem: the number of unwanted horses in America.
More Harm Than Good
Until we can "legislate" a way to prevent that, I (reluctantly) believe a slaughter ban will do horses more harm than good, at least for now. I'm not alone. Such pro-horse organizations as the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the American Quarter Horse Association, along with over 140 other reputable equine, animal health, and ag groups, oppose the ban. (Ask your vet. Chances are he or she has seen cases of neglect that make a captive bolt to the head look like the humane alternative. Mine has.)
How do we prevent the invisible herd from existing? First, we need to stop over-breeding. Sure, that's easier said that done. But perhaps if we educate more people about the fact that it's ultimately cheaper to buy than to breed (plus, you'll know exactly what you're getting), we could help limit the unwanted. I'm also open to suggestions.
Also, we can petition our state representatives to make well-thought-out and specific funding for rescue organizations a part of any anti-slaughter legislation going forward. Without it, such a bill merely removes a symptom but does nothing to help cure the problem. (To contact your senator, go to www.avma.org and put "government action center" in the search engine.)
In the meantime, and if anti-slaughter legislation doesn't become law, perhaps we can turn some of our anti-slaughter energies into the need for the most humane treatment possible in transport to, and time spent with, such plants--and into making sure current laws on the books that call for humane treatment are enforced. Experts like Temple Grandin, PhD, as Associate Professor at Colorado State University who specializes in making slaughter more humane for animals (and has done some equine slaughter studies), can help.
I'd love your thoughts. It's a tough question, one we've failed to answer for our dogs and cats. Let use the slaughter industry as motivation. Because without it and all the attention it's gotten (thank you, Willie Nelson), the invisible herd will become even more invisible. And it'll damn sure be bigger.
This column originally appeared in the November 2006 issue of Horse & Rider magazine. Read Sue's follow-up column, The Slaughter Debate: Your Response.
