It states, "Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, from proper housing and nutrition to preventive care, treatment of disease, and when necessary, humane euthanasia. The AVMA's commitment to animal welfare is unsurpassed."

On a page discussing the "humane" process of euthanasia, they state, "When the horse is euthanized, death will come quickly and painlessly. If the horse is standing when the death-inducing drug is given, the horse will become unconscious and unable to sense fear or pain while still standing. After the horse has fallen, unconscious, to the ground, death will ensue."

The American Horse Council (AHC), supposedly representing the "horse industry", states, "… leading equine veterinary and regulatory organizations such as the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the USDA have experts who make professional recommendations and enforce regulations, ensuring that horses destined for human consumption are treated humanely and with dignity.” (The Horse Magazine)

Cons: Undercover films have been made showing the actual slaughter process. A very graphic series of photos showing this process is available here. Fair warning - the photos show a far different story than the AVMA or most supporters of slaughter would like you to believe.

The Doris Day Animal League site states, "Callous treatment at the slaughterhouse often results in prolonged suffering. Panicked horses are often prodded and beaten off the truck and into the kill-chute. Improper use of stunning equipment, designed to render the animal unconscious with a swift shot to the head, means that horses sometimes endure repeated blows, and remain conscious during their own slaughter, including throat slitting."

Another site states, "The entire process including the slaughter auction, the method of transportation, the feedlots, the slaughter plants...everything up to and including their death is inhumane. The horses stand in line smelling the blood, sensing the terror. They are electrocuted or speared into the "kill box" where they shake violently, falling, unable to stand from fear. They are repeatedly bludgeoned with the "captive dead-bolt" gun which drives a four-inch spike into their skull, rendering the horse not dead but unconscious. Alive and many times still conscious, the horse is then shackled, hoisted, throats slit, bled and dismembered. It is man's ultimate betrayal to the horse."

A hidden-camera videotape taken at Beltex by the Humane Society of the United States in 1994 shows animals writhing and shuddering well after the stun gun is applied.

In a sworn statement before Cook County, State of Illinois, a former employee [name withheld] of Cavel International, a horse slaughtering plant now closed but owned by the same company as Beltex and Dallas Crown, testified the following:

"In July 1991, they were unloading one of the double-decker trucks. A horse got his leg caught in the side of the truck so the driver pulled the rig up and and the horse's leg popped off. The horse was still living, and it was shaking. [Another employee] popped it on the head and we hung it up and split it open. ... Sometimes we would kill near 390, 370 a day. Each double-decker might have up to 100 on it. We would pull off the dead ones with chains. Ones that were down on the truck, we would drag them off with chains and maybe put them in a pen or we might drag them with an automatic chain to the knockbox. Sometimes we would use an electric shocker to try to make them stand. To get them into the knockbox, you have to shock them ... sometimes run them up the [anus] with the shocker. ... When we killed a pregnant mare, we would take the guts out and I would take the bag out and open it and cut the cord and put it in the trash and sometimes the baby would still be living, and its heart would be beating, but we would put it in the trashcan."

The previously mentioned photos and film back up these statement, completely contradicting any idea of humane slaughter.

Fact: Slaughter methods are inhumane. Photos speak far louder than words.

Issue Two: Provides Disposal For Unwanted Horses For Poor People
Pros: The Ft. Worth Star Telegram states, "Proponents also argue that humane slaughter is the best option for horse owners who can't afford to have a horse euthanized and then have its carcass hauled away or cremated."

Cons: The Society for Animal Protective Legislation states, "Pet horses, workhorses, thoroughbreds, Premarine© foals (who are a byproduct of the female hormone replacement drug industry), old and unwanted horses, horses purchased under false pretences and federally protected wild horses go to slaughter. Most arrive at the slaughterhouse via livestock auctions where, often unknown to the seller, they are bought by middlemen working for the slaughter plants."

The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 states in part, "It is the policy of Congress that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death...."

Fact: The majority of horses sent to slaughter are the by-product of the for-profit horse industry. The sale of a horse to slaughter, depending on meat prices, can bring between $150 to $800. Disposal by euthanasia cost around $40 to $200. The average cost of maintaining a horse is $10 per day and is an expense most "poor people" chose not to become involved with. The appeal of slaughter is financial gain. Slaughter is a quick, profitable disposal method of unwanted horses.

Issue Three: Closing of the Slaughterhouses Will Bring Economic Disaster To The Industry
Pros: Beltex and Dallas Crown employ approximately 200 people. Both locations are foreign-owned, thus adding only a tax base to two counties in Texas. The slaughter industry supports "killer-buyers" who visit auctions to purchase horses for delivery to slaughter. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. horse export sales have fluctuated between $30 million and $41 million annually since 1997.

Cons: Horses, if not sent to slaughter, would be either absorbed into the industry or euthanazied. Currently, horses have a total impact on the US Gross Domestic Product of $112.1 BILLION, including $25.3 Billion direct and 86.8 Billion indirect, according to the American Horse Council. Should slaughterhouses close, the rendering industry would have a strong economic reason to start processing horses again, thus providing more jobs throughout the US, not just in Texas.

HoofPac states that "Horse meat constitutes only .001% of the total red meat, pork and poultry business nationally."

Fact: The positive national economic impact of retaining live horses is far greater than the negative impact felt by the closing of two slaughter plants in Texas.

Issue Four: Only Sick, Old and Injured Horses Are Sent To Slaughter.
Pros: An argument often presented by those in favor of slaughter. This statement is not presented in the media.

Cons: Tom Pogacnik, director of the BLM's $16-million-a-year Wild Horse and Burro Program, conceded that about 90% of the horses rounded up go to slaughter. John Hettinger, owner of Fasig Tipton (the second largest Thoroughbred Auction House), Chairman of the Grayson Jockey Club Foundation, member of the Board of Directors of The Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation and NY Racing Association Trustee states that between 7,000 to 9,000 Thoroughbred racehorses are slaughtered every year.

In a 2001 Animal Sciences Research Report by the The Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University titled "Characterizations of Horses at Auctions and in Slaughter Plants" slightly over 70% of the horses slaughter were in good, fat to obese condition, while 88% had poor to excellent hoof condition.

Fact: Not substantiated.

Issue Five: Horses Will Be Left Starving To Death
Pros: Another argument used by slaughter supporters.

Cons: Each state has strong and enforceable anti-cruelty laws that are designed to stop irresponsible owners who desire to starve and abuse their animals.

Fact: Weak and selective law enforcement promotes animal cruelty. No law will solve the problem of irresponsible behavior, but laws can punish those who starve their horses if law enforcement decides to take action rather than turn their back to a situation.

Issue Six: There's No Place For All The Horses
Pros: "These are useless horses that no one wants. How else are you going to get rid of them?" From an email sent to the author.

Cons: In 1999 there were a total of 5.32 million horses in the Unites States, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Current estimates place that figure at around 6.5 million in 2002. At 5.32 million, the 56,600 slaughtered in the US in 2001 represent ONE PERCENT of the current population. The amount slaughtered in 2002, 56,600, is down from 130,000 in 1996 and 345,000 in 1990, according to the United States Animal Health Association. Those horses have been absorbed into the current population.

A large number of equine rescues, clubs, riding associations, equine therapy facilities, retirement farms and other nonprofit organizations are more than capable of handling healthy horses or those with curable health problems. For more information see "What Do You Do When You Can No Longer Keep Your Horse?"

Fact: The overflow can be handled. Responsible breeding and management of horses, combined with the efforts of rescue and adoption agencies, are providing the answer to this issue.

Issue Seven: Large Cats at Zoos Need Horsemeat to Stay Healthy
Pros: Several reporters have made this statement in their articles on horse slaughter. The origin of this idea is thought to be the slaughter plants themselves. According to the suit recently filed by the slaughterhouses, "... most parts of the horse carcass can be sold for other purposes, including baseball covers, shoes, leather products, pharmaceuticals used in open heart surgery, violin bows, pet food, fertilizer, and to feed zoo animals, some of which are endangered species dependent on horsemeat."

Cons: According to the Humane Society of the United States, who recently conducted a survey of nationally recognized zoos, horse meat is not the preferred choice for large cats. Beef, goats and pigs do just as well.

Issue Eight: The people who oppose the slaughter of horses should also oppose the slaughter of other animals.
Pros: The anti-slaughter people aren't being honest with themselves. If they oppose horse slaughter, then what about the cows and pigs and chickens? They have feelings, too. And the slaughter is just as inhumane.

Cons: It is just as inhumane. The slaughter industry in the United States is beginning to come under attack for this very reason. However, this argument relates to horses and for that I'll give a specific answer. To quote one of our members. "Horses are not raised for consumption. They are bred and raised for companionship, showmanship, horseracing or for therapy. Horses are lucky to enjoy the status of being a magnificent creature without equal. Horses have a long history of being war time heroes and royal gifts of kings. There is seldom a statue of a hero without their horse in this country. They also stand for speed, wind and freedom. Humans love and honor to horses is displayed throughout this country. Pictures of horses are placed on license plates (Wyoming, Texas, etc) and cars are named after them (Mustang for example). The magic or the horse is without competition and as humans, we are only betraying ourselves if we treat this animal that we have created to be such a conqueror of hearts as all this would mean nothing."

Issue Nine: Animal Right Activist Are Causing All The Problems
Pros: The Dallas Observer quotes Brent Heberlein, a consultant and past general manager of Beltex Corp., a Fort Worth slaughterhouse that ranks as the nation's largest, says, "We're in for a fight. They'll try to go state to state and pass these sorts of laws. These are radical animal-rights activists. What do they call it out there? The land of fruits and nuts." Dan Piller of the Ft Worth Star-Telegram says, in a September 27, 2002 article, "Animal rights activists have for years complained about the activities at the Beltex plant in north Fort Worth, which employs about 100 workers, and have used Chapter 149 as a legal point."

Cons: "Activist", according to the Webster's Dictionary, is "a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue." "Welfare" is defined as, "aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need."

Fact: Animal rights activist groups often promote violence and believe in the liberation of all animals from human interaction. This is a far cry from the animal welfare societies, foundations and organizations who work legitimately for the safe and sane approach to animal husbandry and responsible ownership of all animals. Name calling does nothing but promote anger among opposing factions. We take offense at being labeled as "animal activist." There is no need to distort opposing opinions with radical labels, especially by reporters.

At Habitat for Horses, we are more than willing to listen to differing opinions on this issue. Please with your valid and logical rebuttals.

Email this site to a friend