The Nuances of the Horse Slaughter Debate

In "House votes to ban horse slaughter" (AP, 09/07/06), Libby Quaid reports that horses will no longer be slaughtered in the US for human consumption abroad.

DISCLOSURE: I wrote to my representative, Clay Shaw, and urged him to support HR 503, which would ban the slaughter.

But then, I was overcome by a Gray Matter, which Libby Quaid articulates. Let’s deconstruct, using the language of the article, which is priceless:

• A sponsor of the ban, Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) "argued that the slaughter of horses is different from the slaughter of cattle and chickens because horses . . . are American icons."
  • Naturally, "culture," "tradition," and "icon" arguments are illogical, irrational, and based on an American-devised value system for animals: some are valuable and most are not. But because cattle and chickens have the same capacity for pleasure and pain, the argument that they are different for sentimental reasons doesn’t justify drawing the line in the sand between horses and everyone else.

• "They’re as close to human as any animal you can get," according to Rep. John Spratt (D-SC).
  • But so are chickens and pigs, and look what we do to them.

My favorite statement, which is preposterous when you first read it, but then starts making sense (hence the Gray Matter) was made by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns:

• We have serious concerns that the welfare of these horses would be negatively impacted by a ban on slaughter.

Read that again. I’ll wait.

This reminds me of the situation in North Carolina, where Mr. James Robbins was prosecuted and given jail time for his repeated abuse of four horses. (Read the whole post here.) The upshot was that one horse died but the others were saved–and then auctioned off. They could be dead–or worse.

• Supporters of the ban rightfully (in my opinion) claim that the tens of thousands of horses will either be sent to Canada or Mexico (and that trip won’t be fun and comfy, I assure you) to be slaughtered anyway (and they don’t have laws requiring the horses to be unable to feel pain before slaughter, and we do–but please know that millions of animals are slaughtered while fully conscious in this country, and that’s a post for another day), or they’ll remain here and suffer greatly at the hands of owners who cannot or do not want to take proper care of them.

Dicey, isn’t it?

• Finally, and as always, I look at who’s behind the legislation and who stands to benefit, and again the Matter is Gray.
  • Opponents include the Humane Society of the United States and the National Thoroughbred Racing Association.
  • Supporters include the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, and the American Quarter Horse Association.

Here is my conclusion: There is not enough room on every animal sanctuary on the planet to take care of the tens of thousands of horses who get slaughtered each year. As long as we choose to use them as resources for entertainment, sport, and profit, we will always have tens of thousand of horses whose fates are uncertain at best, and probably bleak. That’s the real problem.

I ask myself, now that I’ve supported the ban: Are those horses better off dead than alive? What sort of lives are they going to have? How much more suffering must they endure?