Good intentions pave the way to abuse
The National Horse Protection League recently ran a full-page ad in the New York Times supporting legislation that amends the Horse Protection Act “to prohibit the shipping, transportation, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.” Whew!
I’m sure this proposal was written by people of good will who love horses as much as I do and seek only to protect them from the fear and agony of an ignominious end. But written into its language are the seeds of unintended consequences.
The words, “selling or donation” and “for other purposes” allow for other possibilities.
Our culture deplores the consumption of horsemeat, but this wasn’t always the case. When meat was rationed during World War II, horsemeat was sold “for human consumption.” I remember such a butcher shop opening on Lower Santa Monica Boulevard in Beverly Hills, of all places. Our cook, who was of European extraction, welcomed it. My older sister and I, already riders and lovers of horses, were shocked and refused to have any part of it. We did, however, have no compunctions about feeding it to our Great Danes who were literally starving for fresh meat.
Until recently, this country had three slaughterhouses that disposed of about 85,000 unwanted horses a year, their carcasses shipped to Europe. Probably a majority of Americans found this practice disgusting and supported the law that closed the abattoirs.
But since its enactment, horses must be hauled to Mexico or Canada for slaughter. And therein lies the source of much suffering. Instead of being humanely euthanized by a veterinarian in their own pasture or corral, these old horses endure a grueling three-day haul, often under the worst of conditions, and then are slaughtered like cattle or hogs.
Who wouldn’t want to stop that?
Problem is, the proposed amendment is poorly written. In an effort to close all loopholes and cover all bases, the drafters have included language that actually promotes inhumane treatment, and causes a serious hardship to owners of horses that are in pain from chronic disease and can no longer be ridden.
In times when feed prices were relatively low, it often was possible for these horses to live out their lives in relative comfort. But the present economy rarely permits that option.
The speaker at an equine seminar, a noted veterinarian, was asked to name the leading cause of death in horses. His answer: “Lameness,” prompted a hush and some quizzical looks. He went on to explain that many people couldn’t afford to keep a horse they could no longer ride. They had to make a decision to dispose of the lame horse before they could afford another.
This reality is even more prevalent in today’s economy, with the cost of hay double or even triple what it was just a year ago and soaring gas prices driving it higher. An increasing number of horse owners face a wrenching decision.
Having trained horses for decades, my children and I have been able to retire most of our show horses in large pastures. Those that were especially dear to us have been able to live out their normal lives in relative comfort. When the time came, they either died on their own or were humanely put down. Most were buried on the ranch, but the carcasses of those that died in the dead of winter when the ground was frozen were hauled to a rendering plant.
Sometimes, we were left with horses belonging to people who simply couldn’t afford to pay their board. Often these horses were lame and old, but not sick. I remember that we trailered some of them to a wild animal preserve about an hour away. There they were cared for until they were slaughtered to feed lions and tigers that had been rescued from circuses or retired from acting careers. In their last days, the horses were spared inhumane treatment and still served a worthwhile purpose.
Unfortunately, the proposed amendment to the Horse Protection Act doesn’t allow for such humane options. In fact, it criminalizes those who would provide refuge both for unwanted wild animals and for horses who outlive their usefulness.
Many failed racehorses, often still relatively sound, are doomed simply for being too slow to make a living. Several times a year, we read of such horses starving on small farms and ranches or abandoned to fend for themselves on public lands. The owners, if found, are prosecuted by animal control agencies, the horses removed to shelters where taxpayers provide food and a brief respite. But then what? Permanent homes for these poor animals are virtually impossible to find. How sad.
Removing all possibility for humane slaughter condemns unwanted horses to a grim fate and forces horse owners to make unethical though understandable decisions. Before supporting such flawed legislation, we might at least consider the law of unintended consequences.