What has happened to the horse industry since the slaughter houses have closed
Animal rights activists and people that are against horse slaughter would want the general public to believe that things are great in the horse world since slaughter houses have been closed in 2007 .Yet, in the years since then things for horses and horse owners have gone from bad to worse. Congress directed GAO, Government Accountability Office, to examine horse welfare since cessation of domestic slaughter in 2007. GAO examined (1) the effect on the U.S. horse market, if any, since cessation; (2) any impact of these market changes on horse welfare and on states, local governments, tribes, and animal welfare organizations; and (3) challenges, if any, to USDA’s oversight of the transport and welfare of U.S. horses exported for slaughter. GAO analyzed horse price and shipping data, and interviewed officials from USDA, state and local governments, tribes, the livestock industry, and animal welfare organizations, and reviewed documents they provided.
This is part one of a three part series showing how the United States and the horses industry NEEDS slaughter houses. In this part we will look at the effect the lack of slaughter has had on the U.S. horse market.
Since domestic horse slaughter ceased in 2007, the slaughter horse market has shifted to Canada and Mexico. From 2006 through 2010, U.S. horse exports for slaughter increased by 148 and 660 percent to Canada and Mexico, respectively. As a result, nearly the same number of U.S. horses was transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter in 2010—nearly 138,000—as was slaughtered before domestic slaughter ceased. Available data show that horse prices declined since 2007, mainly for the lower-priced horses that are more likely to be bought for slaughter. GAO analysis of horse sale data estimates that closing domestic horse slaughtering facilities significantly and negatively affected lower-to-medium priced horses by 8 to 21 percent; higher priced horses appear not to have lost value for that reason. Also, GAO estimates the economic downturn reduced prices for all horses by 4 to 5 percent.
With regard to sales, many of the State Veterinarians said that fewer horse sales have occurred and fewer auctions have operated within their states since 2007, in part, because of lower horse prices and sale commissions since the cessation of domestic slaughter. As a result, they said, horse owners have fewer options for getting rid of horses they no longer want. Horse industry representatives also stated that the closing of domestic slaughtering facilities has dramatically affected the prices of horses. National data on horse prices do not exist, but data from individual auctions are available. For example, the Billings, Montana, horse auction, one of the nation’s largest, which also sells horses purchased for slaughter, reported a large increase in the percentage of lower-priced horses sold—the type of horse that typically ends up at slaughter—and a general decrease in sale prices. In May 2005, approximately 25 percent of “loose” horses—less expensive horses that are run through the auction ring without a rider or saddle—sold for less than $200 at that auction, whereas in May 2010, about 50 percent of loose horses sold for less than that amount.
The economic downturn in the United States that started in December 2007 also likely affected horse prices, according to the academic experts and industry representatives we consulted. Since many U.S. horses are used for recreational purposes, they are generally thought to be luxury goods, and their ownership is sensitive to upturns and downturns in the general economy. Furthermore, some horse sellers could no longer afford to keep heir horses, and potential buyers also were not able to offer as much to buy horses or were not in the market to purchase horses at all, according to some industry observers. In particular, a considerable number of horse owners are from lower-to-moderate income households and are less able to withstand the effects of a recession, according to academic experts. For example, one study estimated that up to 45 percent of horse owners have an annual household income of between $25,000 and $75,000. According to several State Veterinarians, those owners are more likely to have problems affording the care of their horses during an economic downturn.
This shows that by closing the horse slaughter plants it affected horse prices across the board. Many horse owners having animals that did not fit their needs were left caring for animals that were basically worthless to them instead of selling them for a reasonable amount and replacing them with horses that would fill their needs. The closing of the plants did not just hurt the horses that were already on the ground and needing homes but also the ones that were yet to be born by not freeing up places for them to go.
In the next article we will look at how the closing of US slaughter houses has caused an INCREASE in horse abuse and neglect in the United States.
For ways to support reopening horse slaughter please go to:
The Calvary Group
A link to a petition
The entire GAO document
People for the re opening of horse slaughter
This is part one of a three part series showing how the United States and the horses industry NEEDS slaughter houses. In this part we will look at the effect the lack of slaughter has had on the U.S. horse market.
Since domestic horse slaughter ceased in 2007, the slaughter horse market has shifted to Canada and Mexico. From 2006 through 2010, U.S. horse exports for slaughter increased by 148 and 660 percent to Canada and Mexico, respectively. As a result, nearly the same number of U.S. horses was transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter in 2010—nearly 138,000—as was slaughtered before domestic slaughter ceased. Available data show that horse prices declined since 2007, mainly for the lower-priced horses that are more likely to be bought for slaughter. GAO analysis of horse sale data estimates that closing domestic horse slaughtering facilities significantly and negatively affected lower-to-medium priced horses by 8 to 21 percent; higher priced horses appear not to have lost value for that reason. Also, GAO estimates the economic downturn reduced prices for all horses by 4 to 5 percent.
With regard to sales, many of the State Veterinarians said that fewer horse sales have occurred and fewer auctions have operated within their states since 2007, in part, because of lower horse prices and sale commissions since the cessation of domestic slaughter. As a result, they said, horse owners have fewer options for getting rid of horses they no longer want. Horse industry representatives also stated that the closing of domestic slaughtering facilities has dramatically affected the prices of horses. National data on horse prices do not exist, but data from individual auctions are available. For example, the Billings, Montana, horse auction, one of the nation’s largest, which also sells horses purchased for slaughter, reported a large increase in the percentage of lower-priced horses sold—the type of horse that typically ends up at slaughter—and a general decrease in sale prices. In May 2005, approximately 25 percent of “loose” horses—less expensive horses that are run through the auction ring without a rider or saddle—sold for less than $200 at that auction, whereas in May 2010, about 50 percent of loose horses sold for less than that amount.
The economic downturn in the United States that started in December 2007 also likely affected horse prices, according to the academic experts and industry representatives we consulted. Since many U.S. horses are used for recreational purposes, they are generally thought to be luxury goods, and their ownership is sensitive to upturns and downturns in the general economy. Furthermore, some horse sellers could no longer afford to keep heir horses, and potential buyers also were not able to offer as much to buy horses or were not in the market to purchase horses at all, according to some industry observers. In particular, a considerable number of horse owners are from lower-to-moderate income households and are less able to withstand the effects of a recession, according to academic experts. For example, one study estimated that up to 45 percent of horse owners have an annual household income of between $25,000 and $75,000. According to several State Veterinarians, those owners are more likely to have problems affording the care of their horses during an economic downturn.
This shows that by closing the horse slaughter plants it affected horse prices across the board. Many horse owners having animals that did not fit their needs were left caring for animals that were basically worthless to them instead of selling them for a reasonable amount and replacing them with horses that would fill their needs. The closing of the plants did not just hurt the horses that were already on the ground and needing homes but also the ones that were yet to be born by not freeing up places for them to go.
In the next article we will look at how the closing of US slaughter houses has caused an INCREASE in horse abuse and neglect in the United States.
For ways to support reopening horse slaughter please go to:
The Calvary Group
A link to a petition
The entire GAO document
People for the re opening of horse slaughter
Part 2
n this part we will look at the attempts that rescues and shelters have made and what affect the closure of slaughter houses have had on horse abuse and neglect.
Horse welfare in the United States has generally declined since 2007, as evidenced by a reported increase in horse abandonment and an increase in investigations for horse abuse and neglect. Comprehensive, national data are lacking, but state, local government, and animal welfare organizations report a rise in investigations for horse neglect and more abandoned horses since 2007. For example, Colorado data showed that investigations for horse neglect and abuse increased more than 60 percent from 975 in 2005 to 1,588 in 2009. Also, California, Texas, and Florida reported more horses abandoned on private or state land since 2007. These changes have strained resources, according to state data and officials that GAO interviewed. State, local, tribal, and horse industry officials generally attributed these increases in neglect and abandonment to cessation of domestic slaughter and the economic downturn. Others, including representatives from some animal welfare organizations, questioned the relevance of cessation of slaughter to these problems.
In the GAO document they reported that states that do collect some data reported increases in abandonment or investigations of abuse and neglect since the cessation of domestic slaughter. For example, data from Colorado showed a 50- percent increase in investigations for abuse and neglect from 1,067 in 2005 to 1,588 in 2009. Similarly, data from Indiana indicated that horse abuse and neglect investigations more than doubled from 20 in 2006 to 55 in 2009. In addition, organizations representing localities, especially counties and sheriffs, have reported an increasing problem. For example, the Montana Association of Counties reported that the number of horses being abandoned by their owners has rapidly increased since horse slaughter for human consumption was halted in the United States, but the association did not have specific data. In addition, the National Association of Counties reported that the increasing abandonment problem is not exclusive to Montana or the West but is happening nationwide.
In a review of several Oklahoma horse rescues, they are saying on their websites and Facebook pagesan increase in owner surrenders, and seizures due to abuse and neglect. These horses are putting a strain on horse rescues budgets. This can be seen by the increased number of pleas for donations to care for the animals that they have. The increase in horses comes at a time when already high feed, hay and gas prices are stretching limited budgets to the max. In some cases rescues themselves are the ones abusing the horses by trying to care for more animals than they can afford and having reduced rates of adoptions.A 2010 University of California-Davis report noted that 144 registered non-profit horse rescues responding (out of 326 contacted) spent an average $3,648/horse/year. The study suggests an average annual cost of $50 million for 13,700 animals in registered non-profit care facilities. And, more horses need rescue care every year.
The majority of rescues are at or above capacity. Some no longer accept horses. Most are strapped forfunds. Some have closed for lack of funds.
Among the factors affecting horse owners, a horse owner’s decision to abandon a horse generally related to (1) cessation of domestic slaughter, (2) poor economic conditions, and (3) low horse prices or lack of sale opportunities. The factors most often related to a horse owner’s neglect of a horse were (1) poor economic conditions, (2) the cost of horse care and maintenance, and (3) lower horse prices. Very few owners directly physically abuse their horses, which would be a crime. More common, however, were owners who neglected the feeding and proper care—such as providing farrier services and vaccinations—of their horses. Thus, based on this information, the primary drivers for the increase in abandonment and neglect cases are the cessation of domestic slaughter, causing lower horse prices and difficulty in selling horses, and the economic downturn, affecting horse owners’ ability to properly care for their animals.Current economic conditions are compounding the problem for cash-strapped owners who find it nearly impossible to sell their infirmed, unneeded, or unwanted horses, regardless of age and condition. It is not unusual for lower classes of horse to sell for as little as $1, if they sell at all. Commission fees charged owners are frequently more than the selling price. Some sale barns no longer handle horses because of the slim profit margin and because owners sometimes leave unsold horses behind.
Those against horse slaughter have had since the closing of the last slaughter house in the US in 2007 to make a difference in the number of horses going to slaughter. They have not. There is still roughly the same amount of horses each year going to slaughter houses in Canada and Mexico. These horses endure long trips on transports to places that have minimal standards for slaughter and no oversight by the United States. The closing of US slaughter houses has increased the cruelty horses experience in the slaughter pipeline not reduced it. Nor has it reduced the number of horses being slaughtered.The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), an agency of the US Dept. of Agriculture, reports 130,900 horses were shipped outside the U.S. for immediate slaughter in 2011: 62,500 to Canada; 68,400 to Mexico. Additionally, 2,590 head went to Canada as feeders. (Caring for these horses in rescues would cost approximately $480 million annually.)
The closing of slaughter houses in the United States has done what no one could see. It has made life worse for the horses in the US. Horses that no one wants any longer are taking up resources that could be used for wanted horses that are already here and for the ones yet to be born. While the No Kill movement is feasible for shelter pets, horses have specialized needs (a New Yorker can not keep a horse on the patio!) that make a “no kill” movement for horses unworkable. There has to be a way to dispose of the unwanted, dangerous, ill horse that is cost effective for the horse owner and the country. As sad to say it horse slaughter is that answer. The 100,000 or so horses that go to slaughter each year have a far reaching effect on this country’s economy. And in this day and age every little bit helps right down to the farmer that raises the grain to feed the horses.
For more information:
Check out this video by AMillionHorses.com
A million horses website
The Unwanted Horse Coalition
Slideshow of abandoned horses
Stories of abandoned horses
Louisiana
Florida
Montana
Oklahoma
Suggested by the author:
Horse welfare in the United States has generally declined since 2007, as evidenced by a reported increase in horse abandonment and an increase in investigations for horse abuse and neglect. Comprehensive, national data are lacking, but state, local government, and animal welfare organizations report a rise in investigations for horse neglect and more abandoned horses since 2007. For example, Colorado data showed that investigations for horse neglect and abuse increased more than 60 percent from 975 in 2005 to 1,588 in 2009. Also, California, Texas, and Florida reported more horses abandoned on private or state land since 2007. These changes have strained resources, according to state data and officials that GAO interviewed. State, local, tribal, and horse industry officials generally attributed these increases in neglect and abandonment to cessation of domestic slaughter and the economic downturn. Others, including representatives from some animal welfare organizations, questioned the relevance of cessation of slaughter to these problems.
In the GAO document they reported that states that do collect some data reported increases in abandonment or investigations of abuse and neglect since the cessation of domestic slaughter. For example, data from Colorado showed a 50- percent increase in investigations for abuse and neglect from 1,067 in 2005 to 1,588 in 2009. Similarly, data from Indiana indicated that horse abuse and neglect investigations more than doubled from 20 in 2006 to 55 in 2009. In addition, organizations representing localities, especially counties and sheriffs, have reported an increasing problem. For example, the Montana Association of Counties reported that the number of horses being abandoned by their owners has rapidly increased since horse slaughter for human consumption was halted in the United States, but the association did not have specific data. In addition, the National Association of Counties reported that the increasing abandonment problem is not exclusive to Montana or the West but is happening nationwide.
In a review of several Oklahoma horse rescues, they are saying on their websites and Facebook pagesan increase in owner surrenders, and seizures due to abuse and neglect. These horses are putting a strain on horse rescues budgets. This can be seen by the increased number of pleas for donations to care for the animals that they have. The increase in horses comes at a time when already high feed, hay and gas prices are stretching limited budgets to the max. In some cases rescues themselves are the ones abusing the horses by trying to care for more animals than they can afford and having reduced rates of adoptions.A 2010 University of California-Davis report noted that 144 registered non-profit horse rescues responding (out of 326 contacted) spent an average $3,648/horse/year. The study suggests an average annual cost of $50 million for 13,700 animals in registered non-profit care facilities. And, more horses need rescue care every year.
The majority of rescues are at or above capacity. Some no longer accept horses. Most are strapped forfunds. Some have closed for lack of funds.
Among the factors affecting horse owners, a horse owner’s decision to abandon a horse generally related to (1) cessation of domestic slaughter, (2) poor economic conditions, and (3) low horse prices or lack of sale opportunities. The factors most often related to a horse owner’s neglect of a horse were (1) poor economic conditions, (2) the cost of horse care and maintenance, and (3) lower horse prices. Very few owners directly physically abuse their horses, which would be a crime. More common, however, were owners who neglected the feeding and proper care—such as providing farrier services and vaccinations—of their horses. Thus, based on this information, the primary drivers for the increase in abandonment and neglect cases are the cessation of domestic slaughter, causing lower horse prices and difficulty in selling horses, and the economic downturn, affecting horse owners’ ability to properly care for their animals.Current economic conditions are compounding the problem for cash-strapped owners who find it nearly impossible to sell their infirmed, unneeded, or unwanted horses, regardless of age and condition. It is not unusual for lower classes of horse to sell for as little as $1, if they sell at all. Commission fees charged owners are frequently more than the selling price. Some sale barns no longer handle horses because of the slim profit margin and because owners sometimes leave unsold horses behind.
Those against horse slaughter have had since the closing of the last slaughter house in the US in 2007 to make a difference in the number of horses going to slaughter. They have not. There is still roughly the same amount of horses each year going to slaughter houses in Canada and Mexico. These horses endure long trips on transports to places that have minimal standards for slaughter and no oversight by the United States. The closing of US slaughter houses has increased the cruelty horses experience in the slaughter pipeline not reduced it. Nor has it reduced the number of horses being slaughtered.The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), an agency of the US Dept. of Agriculture, reports 130,900 horses were shipped outside the U.S. for immediate slaughter in 2011: 62,500 to Canada; 68,400 to Mexico. Additionally, 2,590 head went to Canada as feeders. (Caring for these horses in rescues would cost approximately $480 million annually.)
The closing of slaughter houses in the United States has done what no one could see. It has made life worse for the horses in the US. Horses that no one wants any longer are taking up resources that could be used for wanted horses that are already here and for the ones yet to be born. While the No Kill movement is feasible for shelter pets, horses have specialized needs (a New Yorker can not keep a horse on the patio!) that make a “no kill” movement for horses unworkable. There has to be a way to dispose of the unwanted, dangerous, ill horse that is cost effective for the horse owner and the country. As sad to say it horse slaughter is that answer. The 100,000 or so horses that go to slaughter each year have a far reaching effect on this country’s economy. And in this day and age every little bit helps right down to the farmer that raises the grain to feed the horses.
For more information:
Check out this video by AMillionHorses.com
A million horses website
The Unwanted Horse Coalition
Slideshow of abandoned horses
Stories of abandoned horses
Louisiana
Florida
Montana
Oklahoma
Suggested by the author:
Part 3
In this third part we will look at how closing US slaughter houses has increased the amount of cruelty that the 100,000 or so horses in the slaughter pipe line experience.
By closing slaughter houses here in the United States horses that are bought for slaughter are forced to endure long rides in transport trucks to open slaughter houses in either Canada or Mexico. Not so bad for horses bought in boarder states but for horses from the central mid west and other central states this trip can be days long.
APHIS does have a transport program that is to oversee the transport of horses for slaughter. USDA faces three challenges in its oversight of the welfare of horses during their transport for slaughter. First, APHIS faces several specific management challenges in implementing the transport program. Second, legislative prohibitions on using federal funds for inspecting horses prior to slaughter impede USDA’s ability to ensure horse welfare. Third, the cessation of domestic slaughter has diminished APHIS’s effectiveness in overseeing the transport and welfare of horses intended for slaughter.
Several management challenges are affecting APHIS’s implementation of the transport program. These challenges include (1) delays in issuing a final rule to give the agency greater oversight over horses transported for slaughter to protect their welfare; (2) limited staff and funding that complicates the agency’s ability to ensure thecompletion, return, and evaluation of owner/shipper certificates; and (3) a lack of current, formal agreements with Canadian, Mexican, and state officials whose cooperation is needed for program implementation. APHIS’s transport regulation
APHIS’s transport regulation sets minimum care standards to protect horse welfare, but it applies only when the horses are being moved directly to slaughtering facilities, at which point shippers designate the horses as “for slaughter” on an owner/shipper certificate and move the horses directly to slaughtering facilities. These standards only cover horses that are designated “for slaughter” and many horses do not get designated “for slaughter” until right before they are crossed over to the receiving country. It also does not cover horses that are being transported to feed lots, assembly points, or stockyards then to the slaughterhouse.
Over the past 6 fiscal years, the transport program’s annual funding has varied, generally declining from a high of over $306,000 in fiscal year 2005 to about $204,000 in fiscal year 2010. This funding primarily provides for the salaries and expenses of two staff, one of whom is the national compliance officer, who inspects conveyances and owner/shipper certificates for compliance with the transport regulation, with the remainder going to travel costs. APHIS funds only two inspectors to cover all the boarder crossings between the US, Mexico and Canada. There is no way only two inspectors can guard against violations of the transportation program. By the anti slaughter movement getting funding stopped to inspect horses before slaughter it has also affected the ability of USDA workers to inspect horses in transit and report potential violations. According to agency officials, the transport program’s compliance officer may only inspect the owner/shipper certificates associated with the shipment of horses and the conveyance on which the horses are transported. For example, while inspecting a conveyance being used to transport horses intended for slaughter in 2010, the compliance officer found that a mare in the shipment had given birth to a foal. Because the transport regulation requires shippers to verify that horses are not likely to give birth during shipment, the birth of a foal in transit represented a potential violation. However, because of the prohibition on using funds to inspect horses, the officer was unable to inspect the horses to determine which mare had given birth. Thus, the opportunity was lost to document a potential violation of the regulation by the shipper. Moreover, according to the officer, compliance probably has suffered because shippers are aware that transport program officials cannot inspect horses in transit to substantiate potential violations.
The third big problem that APHIS has in protecting the slaughter bound horse is the lack of formal agreements between the US, Mexico and Canada. With the cessation of domestic slaughter and the transport program’s limited staff and funding, APHIS relies on the cooperation of officials from Canada and Mexico working at border crossings and in their countries’ slaughtering facilities to help the agency implement the transport regulation. APHIS has sought similar cooperation from officials working for the Texas Department of Agriculture regarding horses exported through Texas border crossings. The effectiveness of these cooperative arrangements has been uneven, in part because APHIS lacks current, formal written agreements with its foreign and state counterparts to better define the parameters of this cooperation and ensure continuity over time as the personnel involved change.
In reviewing a generalized sample of certificates returned by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) from 2005 through 2009, however, GAO found instances in which certificates were not properly completed by either the shipper or CFIA officials. Based on the results of GAO’s review, they estimate that about 52 percent of certificates were missing key information that should have been filled in by either the shipper (e.g., loading date and time, or certification that the horses were fit for transport) or CFIA (e.g., arrival date and time, or slaughtering facility identification). In addition, they estimate that about 29 percent of certificates returned to APHIS were missing some or all of the information to be provided by CFIA officials at the slaughtering facility. The number of incomplete certificates increased over time also. From 2005 to 2006 48% were returned to APHIS missing information while from 2008 to 2009 60% of the certificates were returned incomplete.
APHIS has no type of formal agreement in effect to guarantee the well being of slaughter bound horses with Mexico. As of March 2011, APHIS transport program officials said they have not received any owner/shipper certificates from Texas border crossings in more than a year. Although some U.S. horses intended for slaughter are exported through a border crossing in New Mexico, the majority of horses bound for Mexico pass through the Texas crossings.26 Thus, program officials said their ability to enforce the transport regulation for shipments of horses exported through these border crossings has been severely hampered.
The slaughter of horses for any purpose, especially for human consumption, is a controversial issue in the United States that stems largely from how horses are viewed, whether from an historic, work, show, recreation, or commodity point of view. As a result, there is tension between federal law mandating the inspection of horses and certain other animals at slaughter (i.e., the Federal Meat Inspection Act) and annual appropriations acts prohibiting the use of funds to inspect horses at, or being transported to, slaughtering facilities. What may be agreed upon, however, is that the number of U.S. horses that are purchased for slaughter has not decreased since domestic slaughter ceased in 2007. Furthermore, an unintended consequence of the cessation of domestic slaughter is that those horses are traveling farther to meet the same end in foreign slaughtering facilities where U.S. humane slaughtering protections do not apply. Their journey from point-of-purchase to slaughtering facilities in other countries, with multiple potential stops in- between at assembly points, feedlots, and stockyards, includes the possibility of being shipped in conveyances designed for smaller animals or confined in these conveyances for excessive time periods. The current transport regulation, the Commercial Transportation of Equines to Slaughter regulation, does not apply until a shipment is designated for slaughter, which can be the last leg of a longer journey.
By closing slaughter houses here in the United States horses that are bought for slaughter are forced to endure long rides in transport trucks to open slaughter houses in either Canada or Mexico. Not so bad for horses bought in boarder states but for horses from the central mid west and other central states this trip can be days long.
APHIS does have a transport program that is to oversee the transport of horses for slaughter. USDA faces three challenges in its oversight of the welfare of horses during their transport for slaughter. First, APHIS faces several specific management challenges in implementing the transport program. Second, legislative prohibitions on using federal funds for inspecting horses prior to slaughter impede USDA’s ability to ensure horse welfare. Third, the cessation of domestic slaughter has diminished APHIS’s effectiveness in overseeing the transport and welfare of horses intended for slaughter.
Several management challenges are affecting APHIS’s implementation of the transport program. These challenges include (1) delays in issuing a final rule to give the agency greater oversight over horses transported for slaughter to protect their welfare; (2) limited staff and funding that complicates the agency’s ability to ensure thecompletion, return, and evaluation of owner/shipper certificates; and (3) a lack of current, formal agreements with Canadian, Mexican, and state officials whose cooperation is needed for program implementation. APHIS’s transport regulation
APHIS’s transport regulation sets minimum care standards to protect horse welfare, but it applies only when the horses are being moved directly to slaughtering facilities, at which point shippers designate the horses as “for slaughter” on an owner/shipper certificate and move the horses directly to slaughtering facilities. These standards only cover horses that are designated “for slaughter” and many horses do not get designated “for slaughter” until right before they are crossed over to the receiving country. It also does not cover horses that are being transported to feed lots, assembly points, or stockyards then to the slaughterhouse.
Over the past 6 fiscal years, the transport program’s annual funding has varied, generally declining from a high of over $306,000 in fiscal year 2005 to about $204,000 in fiscal year 2010. This funding primarily provides for the salaries and expenses of two staff, one of whom is the national compliance officer, who inspects conveyances and owner/shipper certificates for compliance with the transport regulation, with the remainder going to travel costs. APHIS funds only two inspectors to cover all the boarder crossings between the US, Mexico and Canada. There is no way only two inspectors can guard against violations of the transportation program. By the anti slaughter movement getting funding stopped to inspect horses before slaughter it has also affected the ability of USDA workers to inspect horses in transit and report potential violations. According to agency officials, the transport program’s compliance officer may only inspect the owner/shipper certificates associated with the shipment of horses and the conveyance on which the horses are transported. For example, while inspecting a conveyance being used to transport horses intended for slaughter in 2010, the compliance officer found that a mare in the shipment had given birth to a foal. Because the transport regulation requires shippers to verify that horses are not likely to give birth during shipment, the birth of a foal in transit represented a potential violation. However, because of the prohibition on using funds to inspect horses, the officer was unable to inspect the horses to determine which mare had given birth. Thus, the opportunity was lost to document a potential violation of the regulation by the shipper. Moreover, according to the officer, compliance probably has suffered because shippers are aware that transport program officials cannot inspect horses in transit to substantiate potential violations.
The third big problem that APHIS has in protecting the slaughter bound horse is the lack of formal agreements between the US, Mexico and Canada. With the cessation of domestic slaughter and the transport program’s limited staff and funding, APHIS relies on the cooperation of officials from Canada and Mexico working at border crossings and in their countries’ slaughtering facilities to help the agency implement the transport regulation. APHIS has sought similar cooperation from officials working for the Texas Department of Agriculture regarding horses exported through Texas border crossings. The effectiveness of these cooperative arrangements has been uneven, in part because APHIS lacks current, formal written agreements with its foreign and state counterparts to better define the parameters of this cooperation and ensure continuity over time as the personnel involved change.
In reviewing a generalized sample of certificates returned by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) from 2005 through 2009, however, GAO found instances in which certificates were not properly completed by either the shipper or CFIA officials. Based on the results of GAO’s review, they estimate that about 52 percent of certificates were missing key information that should have been filled in by either the shipper (e.g., loading date and time, or certification that the horses were fit for transport) or CFIA (e.g., arrival date and time, or slaughtering facility identification). In addition, they estimate that about 29 percent of certificates returned to APHIS were missing some or all of the information to be provided by CFIA officials at the slaughtering facility. The number of incomplete certificates increased over time also. From 2005 to 2006 48% were returned to APHIS missing information while from 2008 to 2009 60% of the certificates were returned incomplete.
APHIS has no type of formal agreement in effect to guarantee the well being of slaughter bound horses with Mexico. As of March 2011, APHIS transport program officials said they have not received any owner/shipper certificates from Texas border crossings in more than a year. Although some U.S. horses intended for slaughter are exported through a border crossing in New Mexico, the majority of horses bound for Mexico pass through the Texas crossings.26 Thus, program officials said their ability to enforce the transport regulation for shipments of horses exported through these border crossings has been severely hampered.
The slaughter of horses for any purpose, especially for human consumption, is a controversial issue in the United States that stems largely from how horses are viewed, whether from an historic, work, show, recreation, or commodity point of view. As a result, there is tension between federal law mandating the inspection of horses and certain other animals at slaughter (i.e., the Federal Meat Inspection Act) and annual appropriations acts prohibiting the use of funds to inspect horses at, or being transported to, slaughtering facilities. What may be agreed upon, however, is that the number of U.S. horses that are purchased for slaughter has not decreased since domestic slaughter ceased in 2007. Furthermore, an unintended consequence of the cessation of domestic slaughter is that those horses are traveling farther to meet the same end in foreign slaughtering facilities where U.S. humane slaughtering protections do not apply. Their journey from point-of-purchase to slaughtering facilities in other countries, with multiple potential stops in- between at assembly points, feedlots, and stockyards, includes the possibility of being shipped in conveyances designed for smaller animals or confined in these conveyances for excessive time periods. The current transport regulation, the Commercial Transportation of Equines to Slaughter regulation, does not apply until a shipment is designated for slaughter, which can be the last leg of a longer journey.