Horses are historical icons of the United States. Before there were trains, planes and automobiles, horses carried people on their back across the country and helped people plow their farms. The image of the American cowboy is usually seen sitting on a horse. Horses also helped the first United States postmen deliver mail. Even today, there are a substantial amount of horse owners in America though they are mainly used for recreational purposes.
1
Horses are also currently used for companionship, farm labor, horse shows, horse races, walking in parades, caring policemen, and pulling carriages in places like Central Park.
Horses are legally considered livestock by the United States federal government.
2
Benefits of this classification include emergency disaster relief for horses, tax advantages for horse owners, equine limited-liability laws, and tracking and containment of equine diseases.
3 However, owning a horse is still very expensive. The American Association of
Equine Practitioners estimates that the minimum yearly cost to care for a horse, not including veterinary and farrier expenses, is $1,825.
4
It is likely that the current cost of care is much higher than this due to drought conditions and recent increases in the price of gasoline and hay.
5
Include veterinary and farrier costs, as well as boarding expenses in some cases, and the yearly cost for keeping one horse can be over $5,000.
6
1 Ahern, James J., et al. The Unintended Consequences of a Ban on the Humane Slaughter (Processing) of
Horses in the United States. 15 May 2006. Animal Welfare Council, Inc. 4 Aug. 2008
<http://www.animalwelfarecouncil.com/html/pdf/consequences.pdf>
2 9 CFR 301.2
3 Winegar, Karin. “The Slaughter Debate: Solving the Puzzle.” Horse & Rider.
November 2007.
EquiSearch.com. 28 July 2008
<http://equisearch.com/horses_care/health/rescue/slaughter_puzzle_050908/index3.aspx>
4 Unwanted Horses and the AVMA's Policy on Horse Slaughter: Frequently Asked Questions. 24 Jan.
2008. American Veterinary Medical Association. 25 July 2008
<http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/unwanted_horses_faq_pf.asp>
5 Id.
6 Frequently Asked Questions About Unwanted Horses in the United States. American Association of
Equine Practitioners. 2008. 20 July 2008. <http://www.aaep.org/pdfs/FAQ-Unwanted_Horses.pdf>

Many horses live for 20 years and some can live for more than 30 years
7
though their useful life may be substantially less than that which results in a large population of unwanted American horses. According to the Unwanted Horse Coalition, horses that are unwanted include those that are sick, injured, old, outgrown (too small, not advanced enough), dangerous, too expensive, or burdensome.
8
Additionally, a substantial portion of the unwanted American horse population is linked to industries that create foals as a byproduct. One example is Wyeth Pharmaceuticals which breeds mares in order to collect pregnant mare urine, the main ingredient in the medication Premarin used to treat menopausal symptoms.
9
The Nurse Mare Farm Industry is another example as it breeds mares in order to produce milk to feed foals other than their own.
10
In these two industries, foals are often born as unwanted by-products and the mares become unwanted when they are no longer useful. For many reasons, there are a substantial number of unwanted horses in America.
In an age where globalization is evident, the demand for horse meat in Europe and
Asia can be met by the supply of unwanted horses in the United States. Predominantly
English speaking countries such as the United States, Canada, and England do not eat horsemeat but other cultures use it as an excellent source of protein.
11 The leading horsemeat consumers appear to be the Chinese, who annually process an equivalent of
15% of the total United States horse population to provide their population with protein.
12
7 Own Responsibility. Unwanted Horse Coalition. 2008. 15 July 2008
<http://www.unwantedhorsecoalition.org/?id=3>
8 The Issue. Unwanted Horse Coalition. 2008. 15 July 2008
<http://www.unwantedhorsecoalition.org/?id=2&s=2>
9 Mary W. Craig. “Just Say Neigh: A Call for Federal Regulation of By-Product Disposal by the Equine
Industry.” Animal Law. 12 Animal L. 193. 2006.
10 Id.
11 Ahern, supra note 1.
12 Id.

Other countries that process horsemeat include Italy, Mexico, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
China, Brazil, Argentina, and Mongolia.
13 The demand for horsemeat in Europe is increasing due to consumer concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as BSE or mad cow disease.
14
In 2006, the main importers of American horsemeat were Belgium and France.
15
Another demand for horsemeat comes from zoos as large carnivores, such as lions and tigers, require a lot of high-quality protein in their diets.
16
Horsemeat is often preferred because it has more protein, less fat, less cholesterol, less sodium, and more iron than the same amount of high-quality beef.
17
Recognizing the supply of unwanted horses in America and the demand for horse meat overseas, foreign owned companies opened slaughterhouses in the United States. As mentioned earlier, horses are considered livestock according to the constitution though horsemeat is not consumed by humans in the United States. Therefore, horses are sold at livestock auctions which are where slaughterhouses obtained horses. These slaughterhouses would buy live horses from auctions, transport them to the slaughterhouse, process the horsemeat and export it. The records of America horses that were slaughtered domestically can be found on the United States Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) website dating back to 01/05/1980.
18 Among many US laws that these slaughterhouses have to follow, horsemeat, like beef, must be inspected before shipping.
19
13 Ahern, supra note 1.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Unwanted Horses, supra note 4.
17 Ahern, supra note 1.
18 U.S. & All States Data -Equine Slaughter. National Agricultural Statistics Service. United States
Department of Agriculture.2008. 19 July 2008 <http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp>
19 Chapter 12 Meat Inspection. Title 21 Food and Drugs. Federal Meat Inspection Act. United States Food and Drug Administration. 14 Aug. 2008 <http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/meat.htm>

There is a large history of federal legislation relevant to the horse slaughter industry. The 1996 Farm Bill declared it the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service’s (APHIS) responsibility to regulate the commercial transportation of horses to slaughter
20
and the final rule on guidelines for the humane transportation was approved by the USDA in 2002.
21
The guidelines prohibit commercial shipment of a horse that is unable to bear weight on four limbs, unable to walk unassisted, blind in both eyes, a foal under 6 months, a pregnant mare that is likely to give birth during the trip. They also ensure that each equine has enough floor space to avoid injury or discomfort, that stallions or any aggressive equines are completely segregated, and that horses are provided access to food, water, and rest, 6 hours before loading on the vehicle.
Additionally, federal guidelines for horse slaughter were established by the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) to ensure that horses are euthanized in a humane manner.
22
The process is called penetrating captive bolt euthanasia and involves firing a rod/steel pin through the skull and into the brain, producing instantaneous brain death.
23
USDA inspectors (veterinarians) supervised the killing of all horses to ensure that horses were rendered insensible.
24
There are many other federal laws protecting American horses. The Animal
Welfare Act protects horses from research experiments.
25
The Horse Protection Act made
20 7 U.S.C. 1901
21 9 CFR Parts 70 and 88
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=fr07de01-9>
22
AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. June 2007. American Veterinary Medical Association. 10 July 2008
<http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf>
23 Id.
24
Production and Inspection Key Facts: Humane Slaughter. 22 June 2001.
Food Safety and Inspection
Service. United States Department of Agriculture. 10 July 2008
<http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Key_Facts_Humane_Slaughter/index.asp>
25 7 U.S.C. 2131-2159

soring show horses illegal.
26
The Wild Free-Roaming Horses & Burros Act prohibits slaughtering of wild horses.
27
There have been several unsuccessful attempts to federally ban domestic horse slaughter. The Helping Out to Rescue and Save Equines Act (H.R. 2622) was introduced by Reynolds July 25, 2001 (107 th
Congress).
28
The American Horse Slaughter Prevention
Act (H.R. 3781) was introduced on Feb. 14
,
2002 by Rep. Connie Morella (107 th
Congress).
29 The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (H.R. 857/S.2352) was introduced February 13, 2003 (108 th
Congress).
30
In 2005, US horse slaughter was successfully stopped. In June, the Sweeney-
Spratt Amendment to U.S. House Agriculture Appropriations Bill suspended funding for fiscal year 2006 for inspections at horse slaughter plants (109 th
Congress).
31
Therefore, the slaughterhouses could not operate without inspections because according to US law, horsemeat must be inspected. The only remaining US horse slaughterhouses, located in
Texas & Illinois, petitioned the USDA and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to pay for their own inspections in November 2005.
32
The slaughterhouses opened again when the USDA and FSIS agreed to allow fee-for-service inspections at all U.S. horse slaughter plants starting March 2006.
33 The appropriations amendment worked temporarily to stop US horse slaughter but failed ultimately.
26 15 U.S.C. 1821-1831
27 16 U.S.C. 1331-1340
28 H.R.2622 of the 107 th Congress <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.02622:>
29 H.R.3781 of the 107 th Congress <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03781:>
30 H.R.857 of the 108th Congress <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00857:>
31 Illinois Bill to Protect Horses Passes Senate Committee. 8 May 2007. The Humane Society of the United
States. 14 Aug. 2008
<http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/illinois_horse_bill_senate_committee.html>
32 Id.
33 Id.

There have also been several unsuccessful attempts to ban horse slaughter on the state level. In January 2005, Arizona State Senator Mitchell introduced S.B.1288 prohibiting the slaughter of Horses.
34
Also in January 2005, Connecticut’s State
Representative Diana Urban introduced H.B.6395 banning the slaughter of horses for exportation.
35
S.B.67 that prohibits the slaughter of horses and the possession or importation of horse meat intended for human consumption was another bill introduced in January 2005 by New Mexico’s State Senator Steve Komadina.
36 In February 2005,
New York’s assembly member Deborah J. Glick and Senator Frank Padavan introduced a bill that prohibits the slaughter or sale of horses for human consumption as well as importing horse meat into the state for human consumption.
37
None of these were passed.
Currently, six states have successfully banned slaughtering horses or selling their meat. These states are California, Oklahoma, Ohio, Arizona, Texas, and Illinois.
38 As of
2007, there were only three slaughterhouses still operating in the US. The two in Texas were closed when a Texas court upheld an old law.
39
The remaining plant in Illinois was closed after a state decision on September 22, 2007.
40
When Texas and Illinois declared slaughtering horses was illegal, the only remaining horse slaughterhouses in the US had
34 S.B. 1288 of the State of Arizona Senate
<http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/1r/bills/sb1288p%2Ehtm&Do cType=B>
35 H.B. 6395 of the State of Connecticut House of Representatives
<http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=6395&which_ye ar=2005>
36 S.B.67 of the State of New Mexico Senate
<http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/_session.asp?chamber=S&type=++&number=67&Submit=Search&year=05
>
37 “New York.” 2007 End of Session Reports. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals. 14 Aug. 2008 <http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=lobby_endofsessions>
38
Harris, Andrew and Tony Dreibus. “Last U.S. Horse Slaughterhouse Loses Fight to Survive.”
International Herald Tribune. 24 Sept. 2007. 15 July 2008
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/23/bloomberg/bxhorse.php>
39 Illinois Bill, supra note 31.
40 Harris and Dreibus, supra note 38.

to close in 2007. Therefore, there are currently no horse slaughterhouses operating in the
US though one could legally open in 44 states.
This has resulted in an increase in the number of American horses being transported to Mexico
41
and Canada to be slaughtered. This is not a desired result for those who are pushing to make horse slaughter illegal because American horses are still being slaughtered, just not in the United States. This situation is actually worse than having slaughterhouse operating in America because the time that horses have to travel from auction to a slaughterhouse is dramatically increased. This is also worse because the
US has no control of how horses are treated in other countries. In Canada, there are guidelines, inspections and even a national debate concerning horse slaughter
42
just like there is in America. However, the conditions that horses are experiencing in Mexico are much different as there have been recent reports of inhumane practices in Mexico.
43
In response, a bill was introduced to the 109 th
Congress on February, 1, 2005 that would 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.
44
This bill is known as HR 503 and S 311, which is the Senate equivalent. Since an export ban could be construed as a violation against North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other trade agreements, this bill proposes a federal law banning the sale of horses for slaughter. If passed, this bill would essentially prohibit horse slaughtering in all US states
41 US to Mexico Weekly Livestock Export Summary. 2008. Agricultural Marketing Service. United States
Department of Agriculture. 1 Aug. 2008 <http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/al_ls635.txt>
42 “About Us.” The Canadian Horse Defense Coalition. 14 Aug. 2008
<http://www.defendhorsescanada.org/info.php?id=about.inc>
43 Unwanted Horses, supra note 4.
44 H.R.503 of the 110 th Congress <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00503:@@@D&summ2=m&>

and prohibit exporting horses to be slaughtered. On September 7, 2006, the US House of
Representative voted 263 to 146 in favor of this bill, also known as the Horse Slaughter
Prohibition bill.
45
Though the House passed this bill, it never became law because the
Senate failed to vote on it before the 109 th
Congress adjourned. HR 503 and S 311 were introduced to the 110 th
Congress on January 17, 2007. Though the House has not yet taken any further action, the Senate scheduled it for debate as of Nov 14, 2007.
46
However, there is currently a very active public debate about the issue.
Those who do not support slaughtering American horses do so for many reasons.
As stated earlier, a horse is an American icon. HR 503 states that “horses and other equines play a vital role in the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion.”
47
It simply does not settle well with many Americans that a symbol of their country can be slaughtered and eaten by people in other countries. Such an end does not seem fitting to an animal that serves as an American icon. A big part of the debate has to do with cultural preference. Americans do not eat dog meat though some cultures do and it does not allow dogs to be slaughtered so their meat can be exported. Similarly, Americans do not eat horsemeat though some cultures do and some people believe it should not allow horses to be slaughtered and their meat to be exported.
48
HR 503 goes on to say, “horses and other equines are domestic animals that are used primarily for recreation, pleasure, and sport; unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses and other equines are not raised for the purpose of being slaughtered for
45 H.R. 503 of the 109 th Congress <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00503:@@@D&summ2=m&>
46 H.R. 503, supra note 28.
47 H.R. 503, supra note 28.
48
Marquez, Laura. “Horse Slaughterhouses: ‘America's Dirty Little Secret.’” 25 July 2006. ABCNews
Internet Ventures.05 July 2008 <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2235175&page=1>

human consumption.”
49
This alludes to the argument that, since American horses are not raised for their meat, they should not be slaughtered so that their meat can be processed for human consumption.
A large argument used to support ending American horse slaughter focuses on the manner in which slaughterhouses obtain horses. In order for an animal to be slaughtered for human consumption, the USDA has to inspect the animal before slaughter to make sure that it is healthy. This means that the animal has to arrive at the slaughterhouse alive and healthy which means that horses that are slaughtered are alive and relatively healthy.
50
This fact is upsetting for many Americans. Slaughterhouses obtain horses at livestock auctions where they bid against people who could provide a good home for a horse. HR 503 points out that “individuals selling horses or other equines at auctions are seldom aware that the animals may be bought for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption.”
51
It does not seem right that a horse owner can be unaware of their horse’s fate if they unknowingly sell it to a slaughterhouse buyer.
The main concern to American supporters of HR 503 seems to be the conditions horses find themselves in when sent to slaughterhouses. Though there are federal guidelines meant to insure the humane treatment of slaughter-bound horses, many people feel that the traveling and slaughtering conditions endured by horses are not acceptable.
The Humane Society says, “Transport guidelines… are wholly inadequate and allow
49 H.R. 503, supra note 28.
50 Common Myths about Horse Slaughter.
11 Dec. 2007. The Humane Society of the United States. 05 July
2008
<http://www.hsus.org/horses_equines/issues/horse_slaughter_common_myths.html#Myth_Transport_guide lines_protect_horses>
51 H.R. 503, supra note 28.

extreme suffering in transport to continue.” 52
Groups such as this also criticize the traveling regulations because enforcement only occurs once the truck reaches the slaughter plant.
53
This does not ensure that the guidelines are followed throughout the whole journey especially if the horses are transferred between different trucks before reaches the slaughterhouse.
Some supporters of HR 503 also believe that the way which the horses are slaughtered is far from humane. The Humane Society claims that “horse slaughter is a death fraught with terror, pain, and suffering.” They claim that the penetrating captive bolt used to render the horse brain dead before its throat is slit is not always effective.
“Because horses are skittish by nature, it is particularly difficult to align them correctly and ensure the captive bolt stun gun renders them unconscious…
Undercover footage obtained by The Humane Society of the United States demonstrates that fully conscious horses are shackled and hoisted by the rear leg and have their throats slit.”
54
Those supporters of HR 503 concerned with the travel and slaughter conditions that horses endure feel that the established guidelines are insufficient and there is a lack of enforcement.
Many people are recognizing environmental benefits since the closing of all US slaughterhouses. “
The operation of the horse slaughterhouses in the United States had a very real negative environmental impact- two out of the three were in violation of current environmental law related to the disposal of blood and other waste materials. Prior to its closure, Mayor Paula Bacon of Kaufman, Texas—the home of one of the three formerlyoperating horse slaughter plants in the United States—desperately stated "Dallas-Crown
52
Common Myths, supra note 34.
53 Id.
54 Common Myths, supra note 34.

is operating in violation of a multitude of local laws pertaining to waste management, air quality and other environmental concerns...Residents are also fed up with the situation.
Long-established neighbors living adjacent to the plant cannot open their windows or run air conditioners without enduring the most horrific stench.
" These people are also not worried about the effect of increased horse carcasses on the environment. Approximately
950,000 horses die annually and are safely disposed of by means other than slaughter, and the infrastructure can absorb an increase in numbers.
People who support stopping horse slaughter also say that the horses that were being bought by slaughterhouses at auction will not suffer lives of abandonment if HR
503 becomes law. Because of state animal cruelty laws, it is illegal for a horse owner to allow their horse to starve. If a horse owner no longer wants their horse, they can sell it, lease it, donate it to a worthy organization, or have it humanely euthanized by a veterinarian.
55
There are also more than 400 horse rescue and sanctuary facilities in the
United States that provide horses with homes, all of which must comply with state and local animal welfare statutes. According to the Humane Society, “in California, where horse slaughter was banned in 1998, there has been no corresponding rise in cruelty and neglect cases... Horse abandonment and abuse is a sad reality whether or not slaughter is an available option. There is no causal connection between the two issues. High hay prices, drought, poor economic conditions and owner education are all driving forces for horse abuse. Continuing horse slaughter—a form of horse abuse in itself—does not alleviate these problems.” 56
Additionally, they claim that a decrease in horse theft will
55 Own Responsibility, supra note 6.
56 Common Myths, supra note 34.

result as the market for live horses decreases. In California, “horse theft dropped 34 percent after the ban.”
Conversely, those who do not want to ban US horse slaughter believe that unwanted horses will indeed suffer if HR 503 becomes law. Though there are anti cruelty laws meant to prevent horse neglect, many states lack the manpower and financial resources necessary to monitor and investigate neglectful and abusive situations. There is not adequate enforcement of these laws. There is also not adequate funding available to deal with neglect situations in which abused horses must be collected and euthanized as this process is expensive. There are no pounds or public euthanasia funding for horses like there are for dogs and cats. Therefore, horse suffering is likely to increase as horses are left to starve in their fields following a ban on horse processing. “Local and state governments will be adversely impacted by increased costs of regulation and care of unwanted or neglected horses… Communities will expect these agencies to respond and be responsible for abandoned and neglected horses on a level equivalent to current dog and cat programs. Most agencies will need to generate larger resources, educate their personnel, acquire facilities for housing horses, and reallocate their limited funds to include horses and support veterinary services to properly care for abandoned and neglected horses in their communities… Without the option and economic incentive to process horses, the number of animal neglect cases may double or triple in local communities.” 57
The 1% of the United States horse population that would have been sent to slaughter is likely to become neglected if this option is no longer available.
58 After
57 Ahern, supra note 1.
58 Id.

several years, this number will represent a much higher percent of the horse population.
“Neglected horses pose a disease risk to the general horse population and the public’s health by hosting or transmitting diseases.” 59
Without pest control, horses are susceptible to insect-borne diseases like Lyme disease and West Nile virus which will elevate the risk of illness to both humans and other animals. Additionally, horses that do not receive vaccinations can become vectors to zoonotic diseases such as rabies and tetanus. The presence of horse manure in some areas can also be dangerous. “Manure runoff pollutes surface and ground water with nutrients (ammonia, nitrogen, and organic matter) or disease-causing bacteria (cryptosporidium, salmonella, or giardia).”
60
In addition to financial and ethical problems, there are several serious health problems associated with horses that become neglected.
“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… If the same number of horses became unwanted every year, we might need 2700 new facilities opening every year to keep up!” Additionally, these facilities are not financially capable of accommodating the thousands of horses that were once slaughter bound since the average lifespan of a horse is 30 years and it costs approximately $1825 per year to provide basic care for a single horse, not including veterinary or farrier care. Since all US slaughterhouses have closed, “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,
59 Id.
60 Id.

turning away horses because they are already at full capacity.” 61
“The Bureau of Land
Management’s Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Program may be negatively impacted by a ban on horse processing because BLM horses and an increasing number of unwanted horses will be competing for adoption homes.”
62
As these adoption and rescue facilities hardly seem to be an option for horse owners, slaughter is a means by which horse owners have chosen to dispose of their unwanted horses especially when they do not want to left their horse starve and can not afford to have their horse euthanized. A large portion of euthanization costs and criticism involves carcass disposal as it is illegal to leave it to rot.
63
On-site burial is favorable because it does not involve transporting the carcass. However, a backhoe tractor is needed due to the large size of a hole required to bury a horse which can costs $300 to more than $500. The burial option is becoming increasingly restrictive due to negative environmental externalities created by decomposing horse carcasses. Rendering processes animal carcasses into usable proteins and fats that were once commonly used in animal feeds. Because rendering will not destroy the BSE prions, the marketability of rendered products have decreased which has caused a decline in the number of rendering plants. Though horses are not carriers of BSE, the lack of rendering plants reduces options for horse carcass disposal. For the limited areas where rendering is a disposal option, the cost for the rendering company to pick up the carcass ranges from $75 to $250 or more. Because veterinarians administer an intravenous over dose of a barbiturate to
61 Unwanted Horses, supra note 4.
62 Ahern, supra note 1.
63
Pelzer, Kevin D., DVM, MPVM. Large Animal Clinical Sciences. Associate Professor at Virginia Tech.
"Horse Questions.” E-mail to Courtney Mitchell. 05 June 2008.

euthanize horses, there are health and environmental concerns with burying and rendering these horses.
Some landfills accept horse carcasses for a drop-off fee though disposal at landfills is also becoming increasingly difficult. Incineration is a bio-secure method of carcass disposal, but costs $600 to $2,000 depending on fuel costs. Composting horse carcasses is a disposal method currently being tested. Significant negative environmental externalities can be generated including potential water contamination, nuisance odor from decaying carcasses, inadequate disease control, and the required surface application of the end compost product which may not be pathogen free. An emerging technology is bio-digestion using alkaline hydrolysis to hydrolyze the animal carcass into a sterile aqueous solution. Some veterinary colleges and animal research facilities use this technology for carcass disposal. Although this is the most environmentally friendly and bio-secure disposal option, it is not a widely available disposal option for most horse owners. For areas where it is an option, it will likely have a substantial drop-off cost to dispose of the carcass.
64
Since are such large animals, there are several health, environmental and economical concerns about carcass disposal.
When slaughterhouses operated in the United States, horse owners got paid for their horse as opposed to paying to have it euthanized and the carcass was exported to be consumed by humans as opposed to becoming a burden. Since, there is a substantial amount of meat on a horse, some people see it wasteful to let it decompose. Others feel that there may be political ramifications of eliminating a protein source currently provided by the U.S if is becomes illegal to slaughter American horses.
65 “The largest
64 Ahern, supra note 1.
65 Id.

consumption areas are developing countries. Loss of U.S. horses as a protein source will deprive many less fortunate and far older cultures than ours of a substantial food source.”
There are also questions being asked if it is even legal for the US to do so. Cavel
International, Inc, a horse slaughterhouse in Illinois, lost a lawsuit challenging whether the banning of horse slaughter in the state violated international commerce rules.
66
Those opposed to horse slaughter have not sought legislation to ban export for slaughter, explicitly. This is presumably due to the fact that, given the current U.S. trade outlook, this goal would be impossible to achieve. The reasons why horse slaughter cannot be stopped given current export treaties and quid pro quo are the repercussions an export ban can have. Horses are viewed in trade terms as livestock, and livestock is an agricultural commodity. For the U.S. to take unilateral action on the horse issue without consulting its trading partners would be like pulling a leg out from under the table.
Unilateral action could be construed as a violation against NAFTA and other trade agreements. These restrictions could be challenged as an export control, possibly meant to create an artificially low cost of horses in the U.S. and as an unfair agricultural subsidy. The rights of investors in Mexico or Canada to invest in U.S. horses and bring their "investments" home might be asserted in a trade dispute. Retaliatory measures by these governments could throw into jeopardy the fragile but important trade balance in the American agricultural sector. Therefore, the US is unlikely to restrict the exportation of horses which is why opponents of horse slaughter are lobbying for HR 503 which would be a federal law banning the sale of horses for slaughter.
However, there is also doubt about whether HR 503 would really stop American horses from being slaughtered. As stated earlier, horses are being shipped long distances
66 Harris and Dreibus, supra note 38.

to Mexico and Canada to be slaughtered since all US slaughterhouses have closed. If HR
503 became law, buyers at US auctions could simply claims they are buying horses for reasons such as recreation or farm labor. There is no way to ensure that American horses do not end up at foreign slaughterhouses once they cross the border. The US does not have any regulatory authority in other countries. As long as there is a market for the industry, and an ample supply of unwanted horses, slaughterhouses will find ways to fulfill the demand.
67
When horse slaughter was occurring within the United States, it was heavily regulated. As described earlier, there are guidelines for humane travel and slaughter.
During transport all horses were subject to inspection by United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) inspectors, and killing at the slaughter house was performed under direct veterinary supervision.
68 The US government has no power in other countries to ensure that horses are transported and slaughtered in a humane manner.
69
Additionally, when slaughterhouses were operating in the US, “the export value of horse meat for human consumption was approximately $26 million… The loss in revenue is now combined with an expense for disposal of the horse. The result is all horses become somewhat less valuable.” 70
The increase in supply of unwanted horses will result in a decrease in the selling price for horses. Some people argue that this will actually increase horse theft though
California reported a decrease after its ban on horse slaughter. The low market price of horses and the high cost of transporting horses to foreign slaughterhouses combine to
67 Unwanted Horses, supra note 4.
68 Unwanted Horses, supra note 4.
69 Unwanted Horses, supra note 4.
70 Ahern, supra note 1.

decrease profit margins.
71
Therefore, some people may try to makeup their loss by stealing horses instead of paying even the minimal auction prices, transporting them across national borders and selling them for slaughter in other countries. It is also very unlikely to recover a stolen horse once it has been transported across the border unlike when US slaughterhouses were open as they routinely checked incoming horses against reports of stolen horses.
72
If American horses are going to be slaughtered, they should be slaughtered in America where the buying, selling, transporting and slaughtering processes can be regulated.
There is currently a very active public debate about the issue. Interestingly, those who support and oppose the bill both advocate for humanity. The question is which humans are really humane? Though there are numerous groups on both sides of the argument, the following discussion will only focus on The Humane Society of the United
States and The American Association of Equine Practitioners. These groups can be justly compared as they are both considered supporters of animal welfare. According to the
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ (PETA) website, “Supporters of the animal rights movement [like PETA] believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, while supporters of the animal welfare movement believe that animals can be used for those purposes as long as ‘humane’ guidelines are followed.” 73
In other words, both of these groups advocate benevolent human control over animals.
71 Unwanted Horses, supra note 4.
72 Unwanted Horses, supra note 4.
73
General FAQs. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). 2008. 09 July 2008
<http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp>

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a key supporter of H.R. 503 or the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act as they call it. Established in 1954, this group immediately declared a “humane” mission through the title of their organization.
According to their website, “We work to reduce suffering.”
74
This statement parallels the
American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of the word as it defines humaneness as something that is “motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering.” 75
They feel that slaughtering horses is not humane as it results in unnecessary suffering for horses.
The Humane Society feels that horses suffer during transportation to slaughterhouses because of inadequate regulations. There are several groups that agree with the Humane
Society’s position on H.R. 503/S. 311. Such groups include Animal Welfare Institute 76 and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
77
The Humane Society is active in their efforts to pass the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. They have also partnered with PETS 911 to create the Horse Adoption Network which is a database that helps place unwanted horses with new owners.
78
Additionally, the Humane Society partnered with The Fund for Animals in order to provide support to sanctuaries that houses unwanted horses.
79
The American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) is opposed to H.R.
503/S. 311 and therefore, to banning American horse slaughterhouses. Like the Humane
74
About Us. The Humane Society of the United States. 2008. 09 July 2008
<http://www.hsus.org/about_us/index.html>
75 "humaneness." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition . Houghton
Mifflin Company, 2004. 09 Jun. 2008. Dictionary.com
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humaneness>.
76
Government and Legal Affairs. Animal Welfare Institute. 2008. 09 July 2008
<http://www.awionline.org/legislation/horse_slaughter/index.htm>
77 General FAQs, supra note 57.
78
Pet Adoption. PETS 911, a division of Global Alerts, LLC. 2008. 09 July 2008
<http://www.pets911.com/adopt-a-pet/>
79 About The Fund For Animals. The Fund for Animals. 2008. 09 July 2008
<http://fundforanimals.org/about/>

Society, AAEP was also founded in 1954. This organization is the world's largest veterinary organization devoted solely to equine medicine. As stated on their website, the
AAEP's mission is “to improve the health and welfare of the horse, to further the professional development of its members, and to provide resources and leadership for the benefit of the equine industry.” 80
In the introduction to their Ethical and Professional
Guidelines, the “American Association of Equine Practitioners recognizes it is often a major source of information or expertise regarding the practice techniques, ethics and client relations of the equine veterinarian, as well as in defining humane and ethical treatment of horses.” 81
In addition to defining humane horse treatment, they also state in their Ethical and Professional Guidelines that AAEP “advocates the humane treatment of all horses and believes the equine industry and horse owners have a responsibility to provide humane care throughout the life of the horse.” 82 Though this organization may seem very similar to the Humane Society, AAEP believes that slaughter is an acceptable way to end an American horse’s life. They believe that “horses destined for processing... should be, treated humanely and with dignity; transported according to guidelines approved by the U.S.D.A. in 2002 regarding the commercial transportation of equines to slaughter; and euthanized in a humane manner in accordance with guidelines established by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).” 83
In a report written by
AAEP specifically addressing their position on the bill, they explain that their main concerns about H.R. 503 are the absences of funding for the care of unwanted horses,
80
About AAEP. American Association of Equine Practitioners. 2008. 09 July 2008
<http://www.aaep.org/about_us.htm>
81
Ethical and Professional Guidelines. American Association of Equine Practitioners. 2008. 09 July 2008
<http://www.aaep.org/images/files/2008%20MemDirEandPGuideFINAL.pdf>
82 Ethical and Professional Guidelines, supra note 65.
83 Id.

long-term placement facilities for affected horses and clear definitions within the bill itself.
84 If H.R. 503 is passed as it is currently written, AAEP feels that American horses will endure unintended consequences such as inadequate care, abandonment or lifetimes of suffering. Other groups such as the American Veterinary Medical Association and the
American Horse Council share AAEP’s opinion on H.R. 503.
85
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.
86
These two groups both advocate humane treatment of American horses though they seem to debate about what exactly is humane. However, they both agree that the root cause of the horse slaughter issue is the abundance of unwanted horses in America. On
April 19, 2005, the AAEP in conjunction with the American Horse Council sponsored an
Unwanted Horse Summit in Washington, D.C. in an attempt to bring key stakeholders together to develop ways to address the unwanted horse issue.
87
As a result of this summit, the Unwanted Horse Coalition was formed under the American Horse Council in order to educate the horse industry about the growing issue. According to the Unwanted
Horse Coalition’s website, though “no accurate figures document how many unwanted horses actually exist... tens of thousands of horses that could be classified as unwanted are being sent to processing facilities in the U.S., Canada and Mexico each year [since] the number of unwanted horses exceeds the resources currently available to
84
The Unwanted Horse and H.R. 503: An Equine Veterinary Perspective. American Association of Equine
Practitioners. 2008. 15 July 2008 <http://www.aaep.org/pdfs/AAEP_Position_HR503.pdf>
85
Federal Legislative Resources. American Association of Equine Practitioners. 2008. 09 July 2008
<http://www.aaep.org/Federal_Legislative_Resources.htm>
86 Unwanted Horses, supra note 4.
87
About Us. Unwanted Horse Coalition. 2008. 15 July 2008
<http://www.unwantedhorsecoalition.org/?id=4>

accommodate them... Currently, there are not enough volunteers, funding or placement opportunities for all of the unwanted horses.” 88
The goal of the Unwanted Horse Coalition is to stop unwanted horse problem at the source. With their logo “Own Responsibility,” they are trying to teach existing and potential owners that they are accountable for providing care to a horse for its entire life which can be more than 30 years. People are encouraged to buy horses for life. It is also important that breeders and sellers understand that they are responsible for ensuring that each horse they deal with finds a good home. Hopefully, this will discourage uneducated over breeding and irresponsible ownership. The coalition hopes it can help horses before they become unwanted and that teaching people to own responsibly will help lower the number of unwanted horses.
However, horses do become unwanted for various reasons as mentioned earlier.
The owners of these horses have many options which do not include neglect and abandonment. When domestic slaughterhouses were in operation, buyers would pay an average of $300 for a horse at auction. As the number of unwanted horses in the United
States increases due to the lack of US slaughterhouses, market prices for these horses decrease. Though it is becoming increasingly difficult, horse owners still have the option to sell their horse at auction. People often buy older horses in order to provide an existing horse with a pasture mate or in hopes of giving it a second career. People can also lease their horses through partial or full leases. Although some horses might not be usable by their current owners, there are many worthy organizations that accept horse donations.
These include therapeutic riding programs, police departments, equine colleges or universities, horse rescue groups, horse retirement facilities and veterinary clinics. If a
88 The Issue, supra note 7.

horse owner is not able to find another home for their horse, they may have it humanely euthanized by a veterinarian. Euthanasia by a veterinarian is about $66 though this fee varies, depending on the area of the country and does not include carcass disposal.
89
As discussed earlier, carcass disposal can be expensive. Though there are various issues about this process, many veterinarians can offer suggestions about what would be best for different situations. The most common methods of carcass disposal include burial, rendering and incineration. Fees for these methods can range from $75 to $250 for rendering up to $2000 for incineration. Organizations such as the AVMA are currently researching more economical and environmentally sound methods for disposal of euthanized animals.
90
Until responsible horse ownership is a widespread reality, it seems that there is going to continue be an abundance of unwanted horses in America. Some people feel that if American horses are going to be slaughtered, they should be slaughtered in America where the buying, selling, transporting and slaughtering processes can be regulated.
Others feel that American horses deserve a much more dignified death and that if slaughter is no longer an option, then people will be forced to provide other end of life options. These people are hopeful that if HR 503 passes, the situation will work itself out.
It is unclear how American breeders and horse owners will respond. It is necessary for people to consider the cost of owning a horse as it is quickly increasing as well as the responsibility necessary. 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.
89 The Issue, supra note 7.
90 Unwanted Horses, supra note 4.