Q:  What is an "unwanted horse?"
A:  Just as the name implies, an unwanted horse is a horse that has, for one or more reasons, become unwanted by its owner. It may be a healthy horse that an owner can no longer afford to keep or feed. It may be a horse that is dangerous to handle and has injured (or is likely to injure) people. It may be a horse with an injury, lameness, or illness, and the owner is unwilling or incapable of taking care of it. Some horses are no longer able to perform at the level their owner desires, whether that be for racing, pleasure riding, or some other purpose. Regardless of the reason, these horses no longer have permanent homes.

Q:  How many unwanted horses are there?
A:  The American Horse Council estimates there are 9.2 million horses in the United States. We do not have reliable statistics on the total number of horses that become unwanted each year. We do know that 90,000 to 100,000 unwanted horses have been sent to slaughter annually, and that the total number of unwanted horses is substantially greater than this.

Q:  What happens to unwanted horses? Aren't there enough homes for all of them?
A:  Several things can happen to unwanted horses. Sometimes these horses are lucky and find new homes with someone willing to provide them with care and attention and/or redirect them to second equine careers. Other horses may be placed in equine rescue, rehabilitation, or retirement facilities. Some are euthanatized by a veterinarian at the owner's request. What happens to the others? They may be abandoned, neglected, abused, or slaughtered.

Although there are numerous equine rescue facilities throughout the United States, these facilities simply do not have enough room or resources to accommodate the additional 90,000 to 100,000 horses every year that will no longer be able to be slaughtered in US plants. The American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) has estimated an additional 2700 rescue facilities would be necessary in the first year of a processing ban to provide care for these horses (based on an average of 30 horses per facility). If the same number of horses became unwanted every year, we might need 2700 new facilities opening every year to keep up! Based on these numbers, there are not enough volunteers or placement opportunities to provide the level of care these horses would require every year. In addition, horse rescue facilities are not regulated. Although most are reputable and caring places, there is no way to guarantee that they will (or can) provide adequate care for the horses they take in.

Most rescue facilities are also privately funded, and rely on donations to keep operating. The average lifespan of a horse is 30 years. This means that rescue facilities will potentially be providing care for each horse for a significant period of time. It costs approximately $1825 per year to provide basic care for a single horse—and that doesn't include veterinary or farrier care. (This figure does not account for the recent and dramatic increases in the cost of hay—it is likely that the current cost of care is much higher.) Many of these horses will require treatment or medication for chronic conditions, and the resulting costs can quickly add up. There are increasing numbers of media reports describing equine rescue and retirement facilities with waiting lists, and others refusing to accept horses, because they are full to capacity. In addition, the horses currently being received by rescue facilities are thinner and more sickly than in previous years, requiring additional care and expense. Drought conditions leading to higher prices for hay and grain have compounded the problem, making covering expenses associated with horse care even more challenging and maintaining these horses more difficult for individual owners and rescue facilities alike.

Rescue and euthanasia are obviously the preferable dispositions for unwanted horses; however, there are simply more unwanted horses in the United States than can be accommodated by these options. Slaughter is another, although considerably less desirable, means by which horse owners have chosen to dispose of their unwanted horses. With the closing of the equine slaughter plants in the United States, horse owners choosing slaughter as an option must arrange to have their horses shipped to either Canada or Mexico; the additional cost of shipping reduces the value of these horses even further. Recent media reports describe horse auctions where horses have been shot by the owners of the auction house because the horses were not sold and were abandoned at the auction by the sellers. The costs involved in feeding, caring for, and shipping these horses simply exceeded their market value. As much as we wish this were not the case, it is the reality.

Q:  But the animal rights groups are saying the "unwanted horse" is a myth.
A:  Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), stated the following in his blog: "So the question is, if the total horse population has been on the increase, and if there are fewer horses going to slaughter, what's happened to all of these horses? If we accept the argument of horse slaughter advocates, it would stand to reason that we'd have 100,000 or more horses roaming the streets or starving in pastures. But that's not been the case, and people have been much more responsible than the slaughter industry would give them credit for." (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2007/06/abandon_the_myt.html) This statement was made in June 2007, when record numbers of horses were being transported to and slaughtered in Mexico.

More recently, in an interview with a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, Keith Dane, director of Equine Protection for the HSUS, indicated that large numbers of horses were being seized and rescue organizations were taking in more horses than ever. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-horses13jan13,0,6298728.story?coll=la-home-nation). The increasing number of media reports of horse neglect and abandonment appear to support Mr. Dane's statement and make Mr. Pacelle's analysis seem less realistic.

Q:  What are the acceptable methods of euthanasia for horses?
A:  There are three methods acceptable for the euthanasia of horses: chemical euthanasia, with pentobarbital or a pentobarbital combination (euthanasia solution); gunshot; and penetrating captive bolt.
Chemical euthanasia is the best choice for horses, and is preferred by most veterinarians and horse owners. This procedure requires injection of euthanasia solution into the horse's vein, and the use of an intravenous catheter is recommended to make sure all of the solution is properly injected. Euthanasia solution is a controlled drug, subject to regulation by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and must be stored in locked cabinets when not in use. This is the most expensive form of equine euthanasia. Carcasses of horses euthanatized chemically can potentially contaminate the environment, and pose a significant risk of poisoning for prey species (especially birds) unless they are disposed of or protected from predation in a proper and immediate manner. Nevertheless, chemical euthanasia is the recommended method of euthanasia for horses, unwanted and otherwise, as long as the environmental concerns are appropriately addressed.

Gunshot and the penetrating captive bolt are acceptable physical methods of euthanasia. When used in the correct manner, they induce death more rapidly than chemical euthanasia. They produce death in the same way, by disrupting the brain and causing loss of consciousness and subsequent death. Euthanasia by gunshot may pose an inherent risk for other animals and humans, and should only be performed by someone skilled in the method and in a safe environment. The penetrating captive bolt is safer than gunshot euthanasia because it does not release a projectile (e.g., bullet). Please note that there are two types of captive bolt—penetrating and nonpenetrating. The penetrating captive bolt induces death by firing a rod into the brain. The nonpenetrating captive bolt causes a severe concussion that stuns the animal but does not kill it. The nonpenetrating captive bolt is not considered a humane method of euthanasia for horses.

Gunshot and penetrating captive bolt euthanasia are less expensive than chemical euthanasia and do not present the risks of environmental contamination or animal poisoning. These techniques are considered aesthetically displeasing to many horse owners, but they are effective. Many technical large animal emergency rescue groups carry penetrating captive bolts for use in emergency situations. For example, when a fatally injured horse is trapped in a trailer, it may not be possible to access the horse's veins to chemically euthanatize it, and discharging a firearm in a closed trailer is extremely dangerous. The penetrating captive bolt is the preferred method of euthanasia in this situation because it induces rapid death without jeopardizing the lives of other animals or people in the trailer.

To read the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia, go to
http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf

Q:  How is horsemeat used?
A:  Most horsemeat produced by slaughterhouses is exported to European and Asian countries for human consumption. Due to consumer concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or 'mad cow disease'), the consumption of horsemeat in Europe is increasing. However, an often overlooked demand for horsemeat comes from zoos. Large carnivores, such as lions and tigers, require a lot of high-quality protein in their diets. Although their nutritional requirements can be met with other types of meat, horsemeat has more protein, less fat, less cholesterol, less sodium, and more iron than the same amount of high-quality beef. A number of zoos have stopped feeding horsemeat to their large carnivores due to consumer pressure, but there are still zoos in the United States that purchase horsemeat to provide nutrition for their animals.

Q:  How many horses are actually stolen and sold to slaughter houses?
A:  Nobody really knows how many horses have been stolen and sold for slaughter. Although some individuals and organizations claim this number is high, no data exists to either confirm or disprove such statements. We do know that horses are more commonly stolen for their value as performance or breeding animals than they are for their value as meat.

There has been a lot of speculation as to how a prohibition on horse slaughter will affect the number of horses that are stolen. The number of reported horse thefts in California decreased after passage of its slaughter ban, but nationwide numbers from reputable sources are not available. In addition, how many stolen horses were sold to slaughterhouses before and after horse slaughter was prohibited in California is not known and, therefore, these numbers cannot be compared to evaluate the success of the ban.

As the number of unwanted horses in the United States increases, market prices for these horses decrease. For those still transporting horses to slaughter, the cost of transportation will increase as horses are shipped across national borders. Low market price and high transport cost combine to decrease profit margins. An argument can be made that horse theft may actually increase as the result of unscrupulous people stealing horses instead of paying even the minimal auction prices, transporting them across national borders, and selling them for slaughter in other countries.

The real impact of prohibiting slaughter on the number of horses stolen nationwide remains to be seen. There are many Websites in the United States that have been established to assist in reporting and locating stolen horses, but the odds of recovering a stolen horse shipped to another country are much lower. And, whereas facilities slaughtering horses in the United States routinely checked incoming horses against reports of stolen horses, this is unlikely to occur when stolen animals are processed in foreign slaughterhouses.

Q:  Animal rights groups are calling you a pro-slaughter organization. Is this true?
A:  This is not a true statement. The AVMA is not pro-slaughter. Ideally, there would be caring homes for all horses, and there would be no market for the equine slaughter industry. The AVMA opposes the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (AHSPA) because it is, quite simply, a bad bill that ignores the real issue—what do we do with all of these unwanted horses? Eliminating an option for their disposition does nothing to solve the problem, it only adds to it.

Q:  Does the AVMA currently accept or has it ever accepted any money from the owners of the horse slaughter plants?
A:  No. The AVMA and the AVMA Political Action Committee (AVMA-PAC) have not received, and will not accept, any money from the horse slaughter industry, including those who own the plants. The AVMA's position on this legislation is based solely on concerns about the welfare of unwanted horses.

The AVMA's primary source of operating funds is the dues of its veterinarian members. This means the Association is not dependent on either industry or public fundraising dollars and is able to take positions based on their merit, rather than because of how such positions may be viewed by donors.

Q:  What is the AVMA's affiliation with the Horse Welfare Coalition, the slaughter plants, and the Web site, www.commonhorsesense.com?
A:  The Horse Welfare Coalition (HWC) was formed in 2004 by the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP), American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA), the AVMA, and the Animal Welfare Council. Although the slaughter plants offered funding to the HWC, it was declined. The HWC stopped meeting in mid- to late-2006.

The Web site, www.commonhorsesense.com, was initiated and maintained by the slaughter plants. The HWC granted the website permission to post issue briefs, but did not fund, support, or otherwise contribute to the Web site. Currently, the site is being maintained by a lobbying group hired by the slaughter industry, and the AVMA does not contribute to or provide funding for its maintenance.

It has recently been brought to our attention that the AVMA is listed as a national supporter of the www.commonhorsesense.com Web site. This is incorrect, and we have initiated steps to correct the error.

Q:  Why do you say eliminating slaughter is not the answer?
A:  Actions by those who oppose slaughter have resulted in the closure of the last three facilities performing horse slaughter in the United States. When those slaughter plants were operating, however, those transporting horses to slaughter and the plants themselves were highly regulated. During transport all horses were subject to inspection by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors, and as of December 2006, it was illegal to transport horses to slaughter in double-decked (pot-belly) trailers. Killing at the slaughter house was performed under direct veterinary supervision.

Now that horse slaughter isn't an option in the United States, horses are transported out of the country to be slaughtered. This is a problem because the USDA has no jurisdiction in other countries, and has no power to make sure that horses are transported and killed in a humane manner. As a result, horses transported to slaughter are protected by law when they are within the borders of the United States, but may be transported and killed inhumanely once they leave our borders.

Although we hope that the surplus of unwanted horses will eventually result in increased responsibility in breeding, it will be years before the effects of this are seen. Responsible horse breeding and responsible horse ownership go hand-in-hand; the long-term solution to the unwanted horse problem involves breeders breeding fewer horses and owners accepting responsibility for the care of these horses throughout their lives.

Eliminating slaughter will not reduce the number of unwanted horses in this country. What will happen to these horses when there is no more room at the rescue facilities and no one to buy them?

Q:  But the law will prevent people from transporting horses for slaughter. Won't that prevent them from being transported to other countries for slaughter?
A:  No, it won't. It will be difficult to enforce the law, and there is nothing to stop slaughter horse buyers and dealers from describing horses as 'riding,' 'breeding,' or 'pleasure' horses when they are transported; based on the USDA's statistics, it is possible this is already occurring (see the chart later in this document). Once these horses cross the border, there will be no way to determine whether they find homes or are sold for slaughter. As long as there is a market for the industry, and an ample supply of unwanted horses, they will find ways to fulfill the demand.

Q:  What are the current federal regulations regarding the transport of horses to slaughter?
A:  Current regulations (9 CFR 88) include requirements for segregation of stallions and aggressive equines from others in the shipment; sufficient interior height to allow equines to stand with normal posture and head height, and sufficient floor space per equine to prevent crowding; doors and ramps of sufficient size to allow safe loading and unloading; provision of food, water, and an opportunity for the equines to rest for at least 6 hours immediately prior to transport; placement of a USDA backtag on each equine in the shipment; completion of shipping certificates regarding fitness to travel; safe driving habits to avoid causing injury to the animals; observation of the animals at intervals of not less than once every 6 hours; immediate euthanasia of any animal that becomes nonambulatory (unable to walk) en route; offloading and a minimum of 6 hours' rest for animals that have been on the transport vehicle for 28 consecutive hours; proper handling of the equines to minimize discomfort and stress, including the banning of electric prods; access to food and water immediately upon unloading; and USDA inspection of all animals in the shipment. As of December 7, 2006, double-decked trailers were banned for transportation of equines directly to slaughterhouses.

Under current regulations, horses are not eligible for transport to slaughter unless they are able to bear weight on all four limbs; able to walk unassisted; able to see out of at least one eye; are older than 6 months; and, if pregnant, are not likely to give birth during the trip. To read the regulations, please go to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=fr07de01-9.

Q:  I heard that current rules regulating the transport of horses to slaughter aren't being enforced by the USDA. Is that true?
A:  Many of the infractions that have been identified and cited by those criticizing the USDA's enforcement of transport to slaughter regulations are technical violations (e.g., paperwork violations) that have no impact on the welfare of horses transported to slaughter. Citing numbers of such violations can also be misleading because often multiple violations have been committed by the same owner/shipper. The USDA takes its enforcement role seriously and, to date, has successfully prosecuted five major cases against owner/shippers in violation of 9 CFR 88 before Administrative Judges in Washington, DC.

Q:  The USDA recently proposed a change to the existing regulations regarding the transport of horses to slaughter. What was the proposed change, and how did the AVMA respond?
A:  In the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), Congress authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the commercial transport of equines to slaughter. Current regulations prohibit the use of double-decked trailers for the transport of horses to slaughter; however, there is a loophole in the regulations in that they only pertain to the final leg of the horse's journey to the slaughterhouse. Under current regulations, horses can be transported in double-decked conveyances to a collection point, such as an auction yard or feedlot, and then be transferred to a single-deck conveyance that meets the requirements of the regulations for the final journey to the slaughterhouse. Since the closing of the horse slaughter plants, the number of horses transported to collection points has increased significantly and, therefore, so has the likelihood that they will be transported to these collection points in double-decked trailers.

The proposed change to the regulations would prohibit the use of double-decked trailers for the transport of horses to slaughter during any portion of their journey, and not just to the slaughterhouse. This rule change would only affect horses destined for slaughter; at this time, the USDA does not regulate transport of horses for reasons other than slaughter.

The AVMA provided comments to the USDA in support of the rule change. Although there is limited scientific data in the literature, it suggests increased rates of injury associated with the use of double-decked trailers for transporting horses. To read the AVMA's response, please go to http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/usda_letter_horse_transport.asp.

Q:  California banned horse slaughter in 1998, and I was told that animal abuse and neglect didn't go up. Doesn't that mean a federal law would be effective?
A:  In 1998, California banned the possession, transfer, receipt, or holding of any horse, pony, burro, or mule with the intent to have it slaughtered for human consumption. Although the number of reported horse thefts declined following passage of the law, the percentage of animals recovered after theft also declined. Reports of animal abuse or neglect did not increase. However, there has been no investigation of the number of horses that may have been shipped out of the state under false pretense and sent to slaughter. The number of horses slaughtered in the United States declined from 1997 to 1998 (before passage of the California law), and declined further from 1998 to 1999 and from 1999 to 2000, but has increased since that time. It does not appear that passage of the California law had a substantial, long-term impact on the number of horses slaughtered nationwide; it is likely that horses were illegally transported out of California, or that horses from other areas filled any void created by the law.

This is very similar to the situation recently reported in Mexico. California banned the practice, so the horses were likely shipped out of state before they were sold for slaughter. Now that there are no horse slaughter houses operating in the United States, horses are being shipped to other countries to get around the process and the laws. As long as there is an ample supply of unwanted horses and a demand for horsemeat, horses will be slaughtered.

The real, nationwide effect of the elimination of horse slaughter on the frequency of horse abuse or neglect remains to be seen. Although the AHSPA lobby expresses certainty that cases of neglect will not increase, they have ignored the fact that the number of unwanted horses will continue to accumulate to levels we've not seen before. In so doing, they are ignoring the probability that the number of unwanted horses will increasingly overwhelm the resources available to take care of them.

Q:  Is the method used to kill the horses during slaughter humane?
A:  Yes. Acceptable euthanasia techniques result in a rapid loss of consciousness, cardiac or respiratory arrest (the heart and lungs stop), and loss of brain function. The penetrating captive bolt is a physical method of euthanasia. Its action is similar to that of a gun, but it does not release a bullet; instead, a steel pin is driven through the skull and into the brain, producing instantaneous brain death. It can be safer to use a penetrating captive bolt than a gun, because there is no bullet and therefore no risk of ricochet or injury to people or other animals from the bullet passing through the animal's body. In large animal emergency situations, such as fatally injured horses trapped in overturned trailers, the penetrating captive bolt is an accepted method of euthanasia; many large animal emergency rescue units carry penetrating captive bolts for use in these situations.

In the United States, horses were rendered insensible during slaughter using a penetrating captive bolt. The AVMA Panel on Euthanasia performed an extensive review of the scientific literature and determined that, when properly used by skilled personnel with well-maintained equipment, the penetrating captive bolt is a humane method of euthanasia.

Methods that may be used at slaughterhouses outside the United States may be painful and inhumane, and neither the USDA nor the AVMA has any influence or control over them.

Q:  I saw a video that showed a horse that didn't die quickly after the captive bolt was fired. It looked really bad to me. Is this a common scenario?
A:  No, this is actually very uncommon. In US slaughterhouses, USDA inspectors (veterinarians) supervised the killing of all horses. Every federally inspected slaughter plant in the United States, including all of the now-closed equine slaughter plants, has a veterinarian and slaughter line inspectors present at all times while animals are slaughtered. The veterinarian and inspectors are required to observe, ensure correction of any errors, and report any instances of inhumane treatment of animals. Slaughter is highly regulated, and any violations of humane slaughter requirements are punished according to federal and state laws and regulations. For more information, please go to: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Key_Facts_Humane_Slaughter/index.asp

Q:  If you're not pro-slaughter, why do you oppose the proposed legislation?
A:  Because the AHSPA does nothing to provide for the welfare of unwanted horses. The AVMA has outlined a number of concerns with the legislation: disposition of affected animals, funding, care of horses in rescue and retirement facilities, and proper disposal of the additional equine carcasses. Should these issues be adequately addressed, the AVMA will reevaluate its position on the legislation.

Q:  If the act is passed, what will happen to the horses?
A:  The AVMA's primary concern is that these horses will still be transported for slaughter, but will not be treated humanely. Recent reports of inhumane practices in Mexico underscore this concern. According to the USDA Market News Service (Las Cruces, NM), 1687 horses have been transported across the US border and into Mexico from January 1 through January 17, 2008. During the same time period last year, 653 horses were transported into Mexico for slaughter—an increase of 158%. Similarly, the number of horses transported to Mexico for 'breeding purposes' during this was 216, compared to 8 horses in 2007. Overall, 1961 horses have been transported across the border and into Mexico during the first three weeks of 2008, compared to 706 horses during the same time period in 2007—an increase of 178%. This number of horses transported for slaughter will decrease if the AHSPA passes, but only because transporters will identify another purpose as their reason for transporting horses across the border. This may already be happening, based on the marked increase in the number of horses transported for declared reasons other than slaughter.

The following table shows the numbers of horses transported to Mexico in 2006 and 2007, as well as the actual and per cent increases from 2006 to 2007. This data was obtained from the USDA Market News Service. To view the 2007 final report, go to http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnarchive/2008/jan/01-03-2008/al_ls635.txt. To see the USDA's statistics on the number of horses exported to Mexico per week and for the year to date, go to http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateG&navID=MarketNewsAndTransportationData&leftNav=MarketNewsAndTransportation
Data&page=LSMarketNewsPageOther and click on the "US to Mexico Livestock Export Summary" link in the "Horses" section.

Transporters could claim that horses are being transported for sale as riding, working, or pleasure horses, only to cross the border and sell them for slaughter. Catching violators and enforcing the act would be nearly impossible. Transport of horses to slaughter within the United States was regulated while horse slaughter was permitted in this country, but regulatory authority ends when horses cross the border into another country. They might be loaded in large numbers on trailers, transported longer distances, deprived of food or water, and killed using inhumane methods.

Interestingly, when the 2001 final rule on the commercial transportation of equines to slaughter was published in the Federal Register, the USDA stated in its supplementary information a concern that closure of United States horse slaughter facilities would lead to a situation in which horses intended for slaughter "will be trucked to feedlots in Canada or Mexico, ostensibly as saddle horses, then go to slaughter. If that happens, we will have no jurisdiction over those movements because our statutory authority to regulate is limited to the commercial transport of horses to slaughter and to movements to slaughter within the United States." Based on current information, this concern has become a real crisis. To read the 2001 final rule and its background information, go to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=fr07de01-9.

We are also very concerned that people who previously saw slaughter as an option for disposing of their unwanted horses will be more likely to abandon, abuse, or neglect the horses. Although abandonment, abuse, and neglect are illegal, enforcing the laws can be difficult—especially in rural areas where personnel and funds may be limited. This year's severe weather has led to hay shortages that have driven hay prices to very high levels, and there is concern that people will not be able to afford to feed their horses and livestock. People may have to choose between feeding their horses and providing adequate veterinary and farrier care. If they stop vaccinating their horses or appropriately caring for them, the risk of illness for horses and people will increase.

Q:  I hear that horses are frequently given drugs like phenylbutazone ("bute"), and this often ends up in the meat. Isn't that unsafe?
A:  First, it is important to note that veterinary drugs used on horses are clearly labeled with the phrase, "not for use in horses intended for food." This includes phenylbutazone (bute). Any use of these drugs in a horse that goes to slaughter is contrary to the manufacturer's recommendations and may violate state or federal laws.

In the United States, the USDA performs residue testing on random samples of meat. In 2005 (the most recent report available online), testing for substances including bute, antibiotics, and many other chemicals and drugs revealed no violative residues (i.e., residues that were above acceptable levels). Additional testing may be performed by exporters or importers, to make sure that the meat meets the importing country's standards.

So, although this is a common argument used by horse slaughter opponents, it is just not true that all (or even most) of these animals are tainted with drugs. Information about residue testing is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/2005_Red_Book/index.asp

Q:  The AVMA said that more horses are being neglected or abused since the slaughter houses closed down. What evidence do you have to support that?
A:  We've already seen evidence that more and more horses are being transported to other countries and slaughtered. As we've already said, making such transport illegal will not eliminate it altogether. This means longer rides for these horses and an increased potential for inhumane treatment after they've crossed our borders.

So far, there has been an increasing number of media reports of horse neglect and abandonment. In addition, there are many articles about equine rescue facilities, already understaffed and underfunded, turning away horses because they are already at full capacity. For a compilation of articles, please go to http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/unwanted_horses/default.asp. Additional items will be added as they come to our attention.

We acknowledge there are many factors at play in these situations. Recent droughts have caused hay prices to soar, and more and more people are having trouble finding affordable hay for their horses. Hay prices have at least doubled in many areas of the country. As more unwanted horses remain in the horse population, hay shortages and high costs will increase the cost of care and further deplete resources. It will cost more to care for these horses, and many rescue facilities are already financially strapped. This adds to the AVMA's concern that these animals may be more likely to be abandoned or neglected.

Q:  Where are you finding the media reports regarding the unwanted horse issue? One of the animal rights groups claims you're making them up.
A:  We don't need to fabricate these stories-they're real. Contrary to what these groups claim, there's no need to concoct stories when there are reports published in newspapers, journals, magazines, and online sources every week. For a list of media reports and resources, go to http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/unwanted_horses/default.asp.

Q:  You're worried about increases in abuse or neglect. Aren't there laws to prevent that?
A:  Every state has laws that define animal abuse and neglect; penalties often vary from state to state. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to enforce these laws unless an animal is already suffering or near death. In addition, many states lack the manpower and financial resources necessary to monitor and investigate neglectful and abusive situations. Very few, if any, states have set aside parts of their budget to provide for the care of seized horses.

Q:  The AVMA says banning horse slaughter isn't the answer. So, what is the answer?
A:  Simply put, there will be no supply of horses for slaughter if there are no unwanted horses. The key to solving the problem doesn't lie in eliminating slaughter&38212;it lies in responsible horse ownership. If everyone who purchased or bred a horse accepted the responsibility of caring for that horse throughout its entire life, or finding another person to do so if the original owner is unwilling or unable, there would be no more unwanted horses. Breeders, horse organizations, and horse owners should all be aware of the possible fates of unwanted horses, and should make a conscious effort to educate themselves and the public about responsible horse ownership. This has been our opinion all along, and the reason we joined the Unwanted Horse Coalition—because we support their motto, "Own Responsibility."

Organizations supporting the AHSPA are spending millions and millions of dollars lobbying for this bill, and minimal to no money to care for the horses or develop programs to provide for their housing and care. If even some of that money was diverted to providing adequate care and housing for unwanted horses, many of these horses could escape the fate these organizations are pushing so hard to eliminate.

Q:  What are veterinarians and the AVMA doing to help the unwanted horses?
A:  A large number of veterinarians, many of whom are members of the AVMA, already donate or provide discounts for time, services, and medications to reputable horse rescue facilities. Others rescue and provide homes and care for horses at their farms and veterinary practices. However, just as any person's ability to contribute their time and money are limited by what they can afford, veterinarians must also be able to earn money to keep their practices open and support their families. Graduating veterinarians carry an average of more than $106,000 in student loans; they simply cannot afford to donate all of the services, time, and medications required to support the unwanted horse population.

The AVMA's Governmental Relations Division (GRD) has been actively pursuing legislation that will deal with the issue of the unwanted horse more effectively than a slaughter ban. Proposed solutions include setting standards for equine rescue and retirement facilities; researching environmentally sound methods for disposal of euthanized animals; promoting owner and breeder responsibility; and providing funds for the care and/or euthanasia of unwanted horses. For more information, go to http://www.avma.org/advocacy/federal/legislative/agenda.asp and http://www.avma.org/advocacy/federal/legislative/issue_briefs/unwanted_horses.asp.

In addition, when members of the GRD office are on Capitol Hill and discussing the issue with Congressional staff, they recommend the use of chemical euthanasia for the euthanasia of unwanted horses.

As a member of the Unwanted Horse Coalition (UHC), the AVMA is looking at possible legislative solutions that will address funding for the care and disposition of unwanted horses. The AVMA has repeatedly requested amendments to the bill to address the funding, care, and disposal of unwanted horses, but these requests have not been fulfilled.

Q:  I want to donate money to help these horses. How can I help?
A:  Many rescue facilities are at risk of closing their doors due to inadequate funding, and their closures may add to the unwanted horse problem. We suggest that you carefully evaluate any charity organization before you donate to see how they use the donated money, and make sure that your donations are used in a manner consistent with your expectations. For an overview and some guidelines on selecting a horse rescue charity, go to http://www.unwantedhorsecoalition.org/resources/WilliamsPape_AAEP.pdf (PDF, 44Kb)

Q:  How else can I help?
A:  We encourage you to contact your Congressional representatives and ask them to reconsider the inclusion of language in the bill that will address the funding, care, and disposal of unwanted horses.

If you are a facility that can accept and/or place horses, please have your facility listed on the UHC's Website. Please go to www.unwantedhorsecoalition.org, click on the "Resources" link, and follow the link to "Facilities that Accept Horses". Once you complete a brief questionnaire about your facility, it can be listed. The service is free of charge.

Q:  Where can I go for more information?
A:  The AVMA is a member of the UHC. The UHC is dedicated to reducing the number of unwanted horses and improving their welfare through education and the efforts of organizations committed to the health, safety, and responsible care and disposition of these horses. Please visit their Web site at: http://www.unwantedhorsecoalition.org/

The Animal Welfare Council has produced a report entitled "The Unintended Consequences of a Ban on the Humane Slaughter (Processing) of Horses in the United States." This report, prepared by experts in animal science, economics, and business, provides an overview of many of the overlooked consequences of the elimination of horse slaughter. Facts from this report were used in the preparation of this document. The document can be found at: http://www.animalwelfarecouncil.com/html/pdf/consequences.pdf (PDF, 80Kb)

A list of media articles and other resources regarding this issue has been compiled. To see this list, please go to http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/unwanted_horses/default.asp

Top

Source: Staff research, AVMA Communications Division
Contact: Dr. Kimberly May, Medical/Science Writer, AVMA Communications Division, 847-285-6667

This information has been prepared as a service by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Redistribution is acceptable, but the document's original content and format must be maintained, and its source must be prominently identified.