Proponents of horse slaughter have reared their heads again and are braying loudly. Why? Senate Bill 1176, The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, has been introduced into the 112th Congress with bipartisan support. This bill will “…amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.” Apparently there’s much to dislike here if you’re in the horse industry and rely on institutional exploitation to keep your concerns humming along. Then again, if you possess a heart and a sense of justice, there’s much to abhor about horse slaughter (graphic).
Along comes Willing Servants, a western Montana Christian horse rescue group advocating for the slaughter industry. (Yes, you read that correctly.) Willing Servants formed in response to a heinous horse abuse case and has done much good for many individual horses and humans. But for horses as a whole? Judge for yourself. A widely-circulated e-mail from Willing Servants’ founder (T. Manzella) in response to S. 1176 lists 13 points supporting horse slaughter, starting, um, in the beginning with this:“The harvesting of animals is a biblically sound practice.” Biblically sound? So is stoning to death your unruly child. Capital punishment for the little monster is mentioned no less than four times, which surely qualifies as biblically sound.
Let’s continue. “We have between 100k – 150k unwanted horses I (sic) this country with no other solution in sight.” No solution in sight? What say the industry breed fewer horses? Would it surprise you to learn that the author is a horse breeder? I didn’t think so.
“Horses have historically been consumed as food in this country.” Is not historical tradition the lamest of reasons upon which to mount a defense of unethical acts?!?
Here’s why we can’t get even minimal standards forpuppy mills passed out of legislative agriculture committees: “We recognize that eliminating the harvesting of this animal of livestock opens the door to for (sic) the taking of rights concerning other animals of livestock such as cows, pigs and chickens.”The rights referred to are the rights of humans, of course, to kill their property–horse, chicken, whatever. Get a foot in the “no slaughter” door for one and it’s a slippery slope for all.
A digression: The author is far from alone in her dishonest use of the word “harvest” (she even calls slaughterhouses “harvest houses”–kid you not!). Take this comment, for example, from Australia’s savethekangaroo.com: “They use euphemisms such as ‘humanely harvesting’ a ‘renewable resource’ in an attempt to cloud the fact that they are authorising the slaughter of their country’s wildlife for profit.” Whether we’re talking wild kangaroos in Australia or domestic horses in America, the exploiters’ vocabulary is the same.
“Horses have a very valuable product to offer and can feed the hungry with meat that is higher in protein and lower in fat than beef. It is extremely disrespectful to waste this valuable, renewable resource.” Horse slaughter as the humanitarian alternative? I’m starting to feel queasy what with all this talk of harvesting a renewable resource–regardless of whether we’re talking about an “animal of livestock” or My Friend Flicka. What’s next, factory farmed horse meat? (Imagine a horse named Hotdog, or Frank…ending up in one.) And look, if you want to talk about disrespect of an intelligent, sentient being, look no further than this video, created for a former House bill a couple years ago.
“It is environmentally unsound to dispose of 100k – 150k barbiturate euthanized, toxic carcass in a landfill, when far more productive alternatives are available.” Horse slaughter as the green alternative? If we’re genuinely concerned about environmental impacts, let’s take a closer look. In 2007, the three foreign-owned U.S. horse slaughter plants were shut down under state laws in Texas and Illinois.
Other points made in Willing Servants’ e-mail include the alleged increase in abandonment and neglect since slaughter facilities have closed (refuted here), and the safety of horse meat for human consumption in spite of the many drugs given to horses. But let’s wrap up by looking at one last assertion–one that plays well in a “fiercely independent” state like Montana: “Horses are personal property and this therefore becomes a personal property right.” Yup, that’s right, pardner. My tractor. My fence. My cowboy hat. My horse. My property. Never mind that one of them is sentient…
Would Jesus wield a captive bolt gun in a slaughterhouse? Do the pro-slaughter faithful really believe that God condones this (graphic)? If I were a horse and saw these Christian rescuers heading my way, I’d run like hell.
SB 1176 has 24 cosponsors to date. To check the list, visit The Library of Congress/THOMAS and search for the bill by name or number. Here you’ll find a list of cosponsors and can track the bill–it was referred to the Senate committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on 6/9. Consider asking your senators to co-sponsor it. For some recent good news from the House, check here.
This post also appears at animal law blog Animal Blawg, where comments are accepted.