Posted on 2006-02-27

Call to action on horse slaughter

What's new in the movement and what you can do

Dear Horse Defenders,

This is a call to action from The Canadian Horse Defense Coalition. We represent organizations and individuals who are committed to protecting our nation's horses from slaughter. We are ultimately seeking a ban on the practice of horse slaughter in Canada, as well as the export of Canadian equines for the purpose of human consumption. One of our goals is to gain horse industry support, as well as the backing of our legislators. Please get in touch with us as soon as possible if you are affiliated with an arm of the horse industry, or know of a supportive MP or senator.

What's New in the Movement?

First, the good news:

We welcome the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of Canada to our growing list of supporters. The HBPA is a racing industry organization, dedicated to equine welfare. At a national meeting in July 2005, the HBPA of Canada voted to join the movement to defend Canadian horses.

Next, the not-so-good news:

During a recent radio interview, Dr. Terry Whiting, Chairman of the Animal Welfare Committee for the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, expressed his opposition to a ban on horse slaughter. This may come as a surprise to those who care deeply for horses; however, the CVMA stance is a carbon copy of the argument used by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA): that ending horse slaughter will likely result in increased neglect cases. In truth, this is nothing more than guesswork, and even Dr. Whiting admits, "The risk is not proven of increased neglect, but it is a concern." There are other holes in Dr. Whiting's theories...please read on.

Dr. Terry Whiting on CBC's "The Current"
(http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200602/20060215.html):
Dr. Whiting further implies that slaughter is acceptable if it is "humanely conducted". He assumes that slaughter is, in fact, humanely conducted because veterinarians have been hired to oversee the slaughter process in the killing plants. He states that there is a "difference" between livestock and companion animals. Lastly, he talks about having an obligation to the "owner" of an animal, as well as respecting various "cultural differences".

The Canadian Horse Defense Coalition responds:

1. Assumptions are not good science.
1. Dr. Whiting assumes that a ban on horse slaughter might automatically result in an increased incidence of neglect, but history actually proves him wrong:
1. A law enacted in California in 1998 outlaws horse slaughter in that state and the shipment of horses for slaughter. Since this legislation went into effect, there has been no increase in the amount of horse neglect, and equine theft has decreased by 34%. The state of California boasts over 700,000 horses--second only to Texas, with one million.
2. In Illinois, the state's only horse slaughtering facility was destroyed by fire in 2002. While abuse cases had risen by 100 new cases a year, after the facility was destroyed, they leveled off. By the end of 2003, the numbers had decreased by about 100 cases.
2. If horse slaughter were to be banned, Dr. Whiting is concerned about where all of the extra horses would go. Here's where:
1. Some horses would be retained by their current guardians.
2. Some horses would be sold or adopted out
3. Some horses would be given to rescue organizations, numbers of which are growing in Canada and the U.S.
4. Some horses, as a last resort, would be humanely euthanized by veterinarians. This alternative should be reserved for terminally ill or otherwise suffering horses. Individuals concerned about the cost of euthanasia/body disposal need to compare that to what it has cost them to maintain a horse over previous months and years. The eventual and inevitable loss of one's horse must be taken into account from the very beginning, and should be figured into the budget.
5. Some horses would never be born at all. Breeding practices would automatically become more selective, and a decrease in foal production would mean an increase in horse prices. Accountability would work its way into all facets of the horse industry.
2. Slaughter is not humane euthanasia. Undercover video tells a story of terror, pain and prolonged suffering--hardly a fitting end for the noble horse. Please visit: www.sharkonline.org/horseslaughter.mv (not for the sensitive viewer). In contrast to these gruesome, cruel images of the equine slaughter process, the site offers footage of two long-time horse buddies (both ailing) who were humanely euthanized together. There is no comparison between these two roads to death--yet, with the information currently available, how can the Animal Welfare Committee of the CVMA support equine slaughter as an acceptable and humane method of euthanasia?
3. Veterinarians paid by the industry are not at arms-length from the industry. Dr. Whiting makes the assumption that slaughter is humanely conducted because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has veterinarians in the plants overseeing the slaughter process. Employed by the Manitoba Ministry of Agriculture (the ministry involved with food production), Dr. Whiting himself has close ties to the industry. Veterinarians who observe the slaughtering of animals in killing plants should be at arms-length from any industry that profits from these activities. Veterinarians who chair animal welfare committees ought to have no ties to food production.
4. Livestock animals suffer no less than companion animals. Dr. Whiting contends that "there is a difference between livestock and companion animals". What difference? Are horses less worthy than dogs and cats, or is he suggesting that they feel less pain and terror when being killed?
5. Humane treatment of animals should not be influenced by cultural differences in our country, nor by issues of revenue. Dr. Whiting expresses "interest in the owner of an animal" and states that there is an obligation to "respect cultural differences". Who is he representing, animals or the people who profit from the use of animals?

There is something you can do!

Anna Maria Tremonti of CBC's "The Current" needs to hear your views on horse slaughter. Contact Ms. Tremonti at

Telephone
Phone-in line: 416-205-7878
Fax: 416-205-6461

Mail
The Current
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario
M5W 1E6

E-mail use the comments box at CBC Contact

Additional facts you can use:

1. An Ipsos-Reid poll conducted in May 2004 revealed that two-thirds (64%) of Canadians do not believe in the slaughter of horses for human consumption
   
2. A petition presented to Canadian Parliament in 2002 by Liberal MP Sarmite Bulte contained 2,000 signatures of citizens opposed to the slaughter of horses
   
3. According to an Animals' Angels investigation on July 31, 2003, horses at Bouvry Exports in Fort Macleod, Alberta, were shot in the head with a 22 calibre rifle (without pre-stunning) while in the killing box. Although the team did not observe any horses being shot (they did witness horses being hung up immediately after this), they did note that it took three to four shots to kill individual bison. A bison has a thicker skull than a horse, but equines have long, mobile necks. Anyone who has ever attempted to place a halter on a terrified horse will recall what degree of movement an equine head is capable of. How many shots does it take to kill a horse who is visibly shaking with fear, having seen and smelled blood in the dark killing box?
4. When horses are exported live out of the country for slaughter overseas, all control over the butchering process is lost. Those animals are then at the mercy of foreign laws, and may be dispatched by slaughterhouse personnel with minimal training.

Here is a letter sent to the CBC:

Horses, having served humankind for centuries, should not be slaughtered for human consumption! These loyal, intelligent, and beautiful animals are far more valuable as living beings than as food sources.

"Help us lead Canada's horses away from barbarism . .
and into the protected pastures of a civilized nation."