100 ■ ANGUSJournal ■ December 2006

Paxton Ramsey has taken up one of the most unpopular causes in America.

Ramsey recently appeared before Congress topersuade lawmakers not to pass theAmerican Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.Of course, Ramsey is up against toughopposition. Hollywood heavyweights such asBo Derek, Clint Eastwood and PaulMcCartney are among the many celebritiessupporting a ban on horse slaughter.

Despite the odds, Ramsey is gambling thatcommon sense will eventually overcomeemotional arguments.

“We have 60 horses, and we ride every dayat our ranch. I hope none of our horses get tothe point that we need to sell it to a slaughterplant, but I’d still like to have sale forslaughter as a management option,” the cattleproducer from Devers, Texas, says.

The most compelling reason for cattlemen

to oppose the Horse Slaughter PreventionAct is that the legislation sets a dangerousprecedent for regulating animal welfare,Ramsey notes.

“The people who are pushing thislegislation will use this issue as a stepping-stone to ban the slaughter of other livestock,”the Texas rancher says. “This bill basicallysays that you can follow all regulations interms of humane treatment, transport andprocessing, but we’re still going to ban horseslaughter simply because some people findthe practice disturbing. If we allow that tohappen, what’s next?”

Coming togetherSo what chance does an unknown

cattleman have against movie stars andanimal rights activists? Surprisingly, 200organizations are siding with Ramsey on theissue. Two of these are the NationalCattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) andthe American Veterinary Medical Association(AVMA).

NCBA opposes the American HorseSlaughter Prevention Act because it bans theprocessing of horses for reasons other thanscience, safety or public health. NCBAmaintains that a vote for the Horse SlaughterPrevention Act is a vote against animalagriculture in the U.S. and is a vote for thelegislation of America’s animal agricultureindustry based on emotion — not science. Aban on slaughter is also an undue limitationon the property rights of horse owners,according to NCBA’s position.

The American Veterinary MedicalAssociation (AVMA) is actively pursuingdefeat of the horse slaughter prevention actbecause it doesn’t believe the legislationadequately addresses the long-term welfareof unwanted animals.

Since a horse is typically worth only about$350-$500 for slaughter, that choice is a lastresort for most owners. However, 92,000 U.S.horses were processed for export in 2005.Most of those animals were not serviceablefor various reasons or were dangerously bad-tempered. Approximately $26 million worthof horsemeat was exported in 2005 fromthree U.S. processing plants. Most of thehorsemeat is exported to Asia and Europe.

If horse slaughter is banned, veterinariansare concerned that equine rescue facilitieswill be overwhelmed and that there’s no

@Above: Slaughter is viewed as a last resort for owners of unwanted horses. Even so, 92,000 U.S.horses were processed for export in 2005.

Equine experts say the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act is a bad idea.

by Boyd Kidwell

PH

OTO

S B

Y A

BB

Y W

HIT

E

12.06 Horses:featuere 11/8/06 4:55 PM Page 0100

December 2006 ■ ANGUSJournal ■ 101

government oversight of these facilities.Additional money will be needed toprovide a regulatory body to overseelong-term care of unwanted horses.

Providing basic care for a horse costsabout $1,800 to $2,200 per year, resultingin needed funding of more than $200million annually. As the number ofunwanted horses increases each year, theannual cost will rise accordingly,according to AVMA.

Texas A&M Veterinarian BonnieBeaver represented the AVMA incongressional hearings on the HorseSlaughter Prevention Act.

“Our position is that veterinarians careabout the humane treatment of horseswhile they are alive and a humane deathwhen that time comes,” Beaver says. “Theslaughter plants use a humane method ofeuthanasia. No one has addressed whatwill happen to the horses that are notslaughtered each year, relative to theirlong-term care.”

Finally, AVMA points out that most of thealternatives to slaughter (burial, landfill,composting, rendering or cremation) createenvironmental problems. The cost to disposeof a horse carcass varies from state to state($10 to $1,500), depending on theregulations. There is also concern about soilcontamination from euthanasia drugs inburied carcasses.

If horse slaughter is banned, many of the90,000 unwanted horses would need to beeuthanized due to old age, illness or injury.The American Quarter Horse Association(AQHA) has also joined theopposition to the Horse SlaughterPrevention Act. “We oppose thelegislation as it’s presented,” TimCase of AQHA says. “There’s nostipulation in the legislation thatcovers long-term care ofunwanted horses. We also believethat a horse is personal propertyand an owner can do what he orshe believes is in the best interestof the horse as long as the animalis treated humanely.”

A team of nine universityprofessors from four statesrecently wrote a report on theHorse Slaughter Prevention Actfor the Animal Welfare Council. Ifhorse slaughter had been bannedin 2005, the cost of maintainingunwanted horses would have been$220 million. If the slaughter banhad been in effect during the pastfive years, the costs of caring for

unwanted horses would have been more than$500 million, according to the professors.That money would have to come from eitherhorse owners or taxpayers.

Banning slaughter could also have anegative effect on the Wild Horse and BurroAdoption Program. The Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) currently has 32,000

wild horses and burros waiting foradoption. Providing care for anadditional 90,000 unwanted horses eachyear would negatively affect the adoptionchances for wild horses and burros,according to the report.

The other sideThe most popular argument by

proponents of the Horse SlaughterPrevention Act is that horses arecompanion animals and deserve thesame rights as cats and dogs. Proponentsof the slaughter ban also suggest thathorse owners should think carefullybefore breeding mares and consideradopting their next horse from an equinerescue organization. Finally, proponentsrecommend that horse owners plan fortheir animal’s eventual death by settingaside money to pay for euthanasia by aveterinarian.

Proponents of the horse slaughter banhave additional concerns that include:

@transportation to processing facilities incrowded livestock trailers;

@brutal treatment at processing facilities;

@slaughter of stolen horses; and

@slaughter of wild horses. For many years, the sale of wild horses for

slaughter was prohibited. However, anamendment in 2004 loosened the regulationsto allow the slaughter of more wild horses.After negative publicity about wild horseslaughter, Congress again changed the lawand the slaughter of wild horses is bannedexcept for animals deemed unfit for

adoption.In one of its last votes before the

November election, the U.S. Houseof Representatives voted 263-146in favor of the American HorseSlaughter Prevention Act (H.R.503.) The bill may soon go beforethe U.S. Senate.

“It’s important that people inevery state contact their Senators,”Ramsey says. “We still have afighting chance to defeat thisproposal. But the other side isahead right now.”

Editor’s Note: H.R. 503 AmericanHorse Slaughter Prevention Act waspassed by a 263-146 vote Sept. 7 inthe House. The issue may be taken upin the Senate at any time.

@“The people who are pushing this legislationwill use this issue as a stepping-stone to banthe slaughter of other livestock,” Texas rancherPaxton Ramsey says.

For more informationFor information about the

American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, visit these web sites:

• www.animalwelfarecouncil.org

• www.avma.org

• www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/equine_protection/get_the_facts_on_horse_slaughter.htm

• www.beef.org (click Cattle Industry News)

• www.equineadvocates.com/slaughter.html

12.06 Horses:featuere 11/8/06 6:14 PM Page 0101