U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–577 PDF 2006

THE HORSE PROTECTION

ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 503

JULY 27, 2006

Serial No. 109–36

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture

www.agriculture.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman

RICHARD W. POMBO, California,

Vice Chairman

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

MIKE PENCE, Indiana

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama

STEVE KING, Iowa

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,

Ranking Minority Member

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina

JOE BACA, California

ED CASE, Hawaii

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia

STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JIM COSTA, California

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

RICK LARSEN, Washington

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Staff Director

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel

JOHN HAUGEN, Communications Director

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

H.R. 503, To 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. ............................................................................... 6

Cuellar, Hon. Henry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 11

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 1

Hayes, Hon. Robin, a Representative in Congress from the State of North

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 11

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Minnesota, opening statement ............................................................................ 3

WITNESSES

Beaver, Bonnie V., D.V.M., past president, American Veterinary Medical Association, College Station, TX ............................................................................. 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

Bowman, Frank S., president, Horsemens Council of Illinois, Pleasant Plains,

IL ........................................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51

Lenz, Thomas R., D.V.M., past president and chairman of the Equine Welfare

Committee, American Association of Equine Practitioners, Louisburg, KS .... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

Pate, TAmmy, member, American Quarter Horse Association, horse owner

and trainer, Helena, MT ...................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

Ramsey, Paxton, Young Cattlemens Committee chairman and Agriculture

Policy Committee member, National Cattlemens Beef Association, Devers,

TX .......................................................................................................................... 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48

Sherwood, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 12

Stenholm, Hon. Charles W., senior policy advisor, Olsson, Frank, and Weeda,

P.C. ........................................................................................................................ 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46
(1)

THE HORSE PROTECTION ACT

THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in room 1301

of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bob Goodlatte (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Pombo, Lucas, Moran, Jenkins, Gutknecht, Hayes, Johnson, Osborne, Pence, Graves, Bonner,

King, Musgrave, Neugebauer, Boustany, Schwarz, Conaway,

Sodrel, Peterson, Holden, McIntyre, Etheridge, Baca, Cardoza,

Marshall, Herseth, Butterfield, Cuellar, Melancon, Costa, Salazar,

Barrow, Boswell, Larsen, Davis, and Chandler.

Staff present: William E. O’Conner, Jr., Pete Thomson, John

Goldberg, Kevin Kramp, Bryan Dierlam, Tobin Ellison, William B.

Farris, Pamilyn Miller, Elizabeth Parker, Callista Gingrich, clerk;

Jamie Weyer, Andy Baker, Christy Birdsong, and Chandler Goule.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

OF VIRGINIA

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. This hearing of the House Committee on Agriculture to review H.R. 503, a bill to amend the Horse

Protection Act, will come to order.

The hearing today is to discuss H.R. 503 for the purpose of reviewing legislation under the Committee on Agriculture’s jurisdiction, and to bring some sense to the discussion about banning horse

owners from making decisions for themselves. This is an important

topic, not only to horse owners and taxpayers. It also has far-reaching implications for the entire animal agriculture community.

This bill is part of a larger agenda for the animal rights activists,

an agenda against all of agriculture. The proponents of H.R. 503

are not engaged in a public policy discussion; they are engaged in

a public relations campaign. They have the bumper stickers, the celebrities and the sound bites. They do not have the fact. As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and as members of the

Agriculture Committee, we all have the duty to be guided by sound

fact and reason in order to responsibly represent our farmers,

ranchers, agribusinesses and horse owners.

We are very pleased to have Congressman Don Sherwood testifying as an avid Belgian draft horse owner, and former Congressman

Charlie Stenholm’s presence here today reminds all of us that our

responsibility to agriculture extends beyond our service here in
2

Congress. Our other panelists represent horse owners, veterinarians, and those who would be on the front lines, dealing with the

real world problems this legislation would create.

More than 235 reputable horse organizations, animal health organizations, and agricultural organizations have joined together in

opposition of this legislation. As evidenced by our panels of witnesses today, they represent some of the most respected people who

own and care for horses in the United States.

The panelists and I, and the members of this committee, are concerned that if enacted, this bill would negatively impact the health

and welfare of horses across the country. H.R. 503 does not address

the underlying issue of unwanted horses in the U.S. It contributes

to the problem.

As a public policy matter, this issue should be about what is the

best approach for the humane treatment of horses. Right now, the

only federally regulated transportation and euthanasia of horses

are the programs that this bill seeks to abolish. Ironically, Government supervision of humane treatment of horses would be the first

casualty of H.R. 503.

If the true purpose of this legislation was to provide for humane

treatment of horses, as the proponents say, then the bill would address the issue of the fate of hundreds of thousands of these animals affected. If the bill were enacted as written, within the first

6 years there would be an estimated 272,000 additional unwanted

horses. There are not enough rescue retirement facilities available

to take care of the current numbers of unwanted horses. A conservative estimate of the cumulative maintenance cost for those horses

is at least $3 to $4 billion.

Dr. Ernie Davis, director of the Center for Equine Business Studies At Texas A&M, estimated with a 20 percent annual normal

death rate—10 percent is probably more likely—and not taking

into account the average annual birth rate, within 6 years of a

slaughter ban we would have 272,000 additional horses. A conservative estimate of the cumulative maintenance costs over 6 years for

horses who otherwise would be slaughtered is at least $3 to $4 billion.

Since the proponents say they would prefer that unwanted

horses are euthanized instead of being processed into a useful product, what about disposal of the potentially tens of thousands of

extra carcasses per year? All States regulate the disposal of animal

carcasses. Local governments already grapple with the problem of

unwanted dogs and cats and their disposal. Horses are on average

50 times larger animals. There will be tremendous difficulty for

many local Governments to properly dispose of carcasses of

euthanized horses. It will be expensive and will create environmental and wildlife concerns.

In the interest of time, I will not fully outline all of my many

concerns with this bill. But some questions this committee should

consider include: What do we do to solve the problem of unwanted

horses in America? What are the rights of individuals to decide

what to do with their animals? What are the implications for other

livestock sectors if we ban humane slaughter for one species? Why

would the Federal Government put a legitimate business, and in

effect thousands of people, out of work? What will happen to the
3

thousands of horses that are shipped to slaughter plants in other

countries outside the humane regulation? Make no mistake about

it, this bill will not stop the export of U.S. horses to other countries

for slaughter.

Since the bill provides no mechanism to ensure horses are not

abandoned by owners, who will deal with the abandoned, starving

horses whose owners lack the ability to care for them? How do the

States and counties that have a statutory obligation to deal with

unwanted animals cope with the abandoned horses that will be left

on their doorstep as a result of this bill?

Of the horses that go to sanctuaries, who is going to ensure that

there is enough space, money, and expertise to properly care for

hundreds of thousands of animals that can easily live to 30 years

of age? Who is going to pay for that? Who is going to regulate

them?

Which leads me to the overarching question: Why is Congress

rushing to enact legislation that causes many problems and solves

none, especially when there is no consensus in the livestock community? Even if the goal of this legislation was desirable, and I do

not accept that premise, this is not a bill that will improve the

treatment of horses. Too little has been done to deal with the consequences of destroying a legitimate industry by Government fiat.

If anything, H.R. 503 in its current form will lead to more suffering

for the horses it purports to help.

This draconian legislation will have far-reaching and significant

detrimental effects for both horses, horse owners and the larger agriculture sector. As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,

and as members of the House Agriculture Committee, it is our responsibility and privilege to thoroughly review and explore all legislation and Federal policies that affect the agriculture community.

This legislation is woefully inadequate, emotionally misguided, and

fails to serve the best interest of the American horse, and horse

owner, despite what the proponents would have you to believe.

That is why every major horse owner organization in the county

that has taken a stand on this issue has taken a strong stand

against H.R. 503.

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their tremendous

effort to be here today on such short notice. It proves your passion

and dedication to this issue. I would also thank all of the organizations who have and will continue to work tirelessly to let Congress

know of their strong opposition to H.R. 503. As you can tell, I am

also committed to protecting our Nation’s horses, horse owners and

all of agriculture.

At this time, it is my pleasure to recognize the ranking member

of the committee, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Peterson.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling

this hearing. I would also like to welcome the witnesses and thank

them for coming here today to share their views with us.

Horse processing has been a volatile issue, as we well know here

on the Agriculture Committee. Coming from rural areas, we are fa-
4

miliar with the many roles horses play, whether it is sports like

racing or rodeo, or working on our farms and ranches. But inevitably, there comes a time when these horses are no longer useful,

or wanted. And when that happens, processing plants ensure that

the horses are handled in a humane way, under the guidelines of

the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Slaughter Act.

Horse care and livestock organizations, including the American

Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of

Equine Practitioners, and many others all oppose a ban on the humane slaughter of horses, and I stand with them.

The problem with this bill is that it is based strictly on emotion.

In truth, it ignores the animal welfare and economic benefits that

a properly run processing industry provides, which is the real

issue. A processing ban would either increase the number of horses

sent to public animal rescue and retirement facilities, or force owners to keep those animals. But actually, in my area, where we are

quite a ways from the closest processing in Illinois, we already

have a problem of people taking horses out in the country and letting them go. And this bill will exacerbate that problem.

Neither result is, in my opinion, logical or economically sound. In

the first instance, the ban would stretch the thin resources of rescue facilities as they struggle to provide adequate care to a dramatically greater number of horses, and this bill does not provide

any money to help facilities cover the additional costs of care for

rescued horses, which could amount to tens of millions of dollars.

In the second scenario, the cost of caring for unwanted horses,

would place an undue burden on the owners. And I think we all

know that significant horse maintenance averages about $2,300 per

year, an expense that many owners just can’t sustain, and hence

we have had these kind of problems that we are already seeing in

Minnesota. With economic pressures from natural disasters, and

even the increased price of gasoline, it is easy to see how some low

and middle income owners may have to choose between paying the

bills or maintaining the basic quality of life for these aging horses.

Processing provides a cost-effective alternative to neglect and

abandonment when horse owners are unable to find another buyer.

In 2005 alone it saved owners and rescue facilities an estimated

$220 million in total costs of caring for unwanted horses. The same

study by the Animal Welfare Council estimated that the cumulative annual maintenance cost of otherwise processed horses since

the year 2000 would have exceeded more than $513 million in

2005.

This is a heavy burden indeed. But that study assumes that owners will continue to provide quality care for these animals. The real

question of animal welfare lies in what will happen if the processing ban is imposed. These unwanted horses are often sick, unfit or

problem animals that are simply that, unwanted. Many of them

are already living in pain and discomfort. Tens of thousands more

would be neglected or abandoned if their owners are not provided

with this alternative end of life option.

At the end of the day, this debate is about defining what is humane when we are dealing with unwanted horses. Are we going to

continue to provide horse owners with a humane end of life option

for their horses, or are we going to sentence these animals to live
5

out their days in suffering and neglect? I urge my colleagues to join

me and many others on this committee in opposing this legislation

that will tie the hands of horse owners in this country. And I yield

back.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.

Without objection, H.R. 503 and statements by any Member will

be made a part of the record, and we will proceed to our first witness.

[H.R. 503 and the prepared statements follow:]
6
7
8
9
10
11

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN, HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Peterson for holding

this hearing to review H.R. 503, a bill to amend the Horse Protection Act. This is

a bill that has tremendous shortcomings, will cause major disruptions in the horse

industry, and lacks any strategy of how we deal with the problems it will undoubtedly create.

This bill is based solely on emotion. On the surface, it may make a person feel

good to say they would not support processing horses that will later be eaten be consumers overseas. But if you stop and think about what happens to those 60-90,000

horses that will be diverted from slaughter, you realize this bill does not provide

a single answer to truly solve the problem.

I find it distressing that the proponents of H.R. 503 care more about what happens to the animal after it is euthanized than what happens while these animals

are alive. If these animals are no longer able to be processed at federally regulated

plants, where will these horses go? Yes, these animals will be alive, but if it is a

life of neglect, abuse, abandonment, starvation—what good have we served? I want

to make sure that all of these animals are cared for humanely throughout their life.

Owning a horse is a privilege that should be taken seriously. Horses are highmaintenance animals that require feed, water, veterinary care, and safe keeping.

The care of horses is expensive. The Animal Welfare Council estimates it costs

$2,340 per year per horse. Public animal rescue facilities and horse sanctuaries

across the country are currently saturated with unwanted horses and in desperate

need of funds. How does adding thousands more horses help this already dismal situation?

H.R. 503 does not provide a single answer to ensure the proper care of these animals. Where will these animals go? How do we fund their care? How do we ensure

they are not starved and abandoned? Why should we saddle our local communities

with this burden?

More than 60 reputable horse organizations, animal health organizations, and agricultural organizations oppose this legislation, and they represent some of the most

respected and knowledgeable people who own and care for horses in the United

States. In my home State, the North Carolina Horse Council, North Carolina Quarter Horse Association, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services, North Carolina Farm Bureau, North Carolina Pork Council, and the North

Carolina Cattlemen’s Association oppose this legislation and the precedent it could

set for other livestock.

If you look at the facts and not the emotional hype, I believe the choice here is

really quite simple. I believe my stand against H.R. 503 is a stand for the humane

treatment of these animals.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY CUELLAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

• Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Peterson, thank you for your decision to

hold this hearing on H.R. 503. • This bill has drawn lots of attention because horses have a special place in

American culture. Some say horses are American icons that deserved to be treated

as such. • Because of the special place assigned to these animals, it would seem logical

that we take action relative to their housing, care and handling based only on the

best science, the best professional advice of equine veterinarians, and ultimately,

what best serves the well-being of the animal. • Unfortunately, this bill throws thoughtful, deliberate logic and knowledgeable

science out the window. • I am strongly concerned that this bill does nothing to enhance the welfare of

these animals. • But I am even more concerned that this bill would insert the Federal Government into a citizen’s decision on the disposition of his or her private property. • If a citizen wants to obtain the maximum value for their property, they should

be free from Government interference in choosing the best avenue to do so. • Further, this bill says nothing about the disposition of unwanted horses or the

costs related to caring for these animals.

• This bill is held up as an animal welfare bill but it conveniently overlooks the

fact that no standards exist to ensure affected horses will receive appropriate and

adequate care.

• This bill is long on emotion but short on a true understanding of equine welfare.

• Horses do have a special place in American culture.
12

• But we should not allow emotion and sound bites to move us to hasty actions

that potentially condemn thousands of horses to abandonment and neglect.

• Thank you again, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very pleased to welcome the Honorable

Don Sherwood, Member of Congress from the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. Mr. Sherwood, as I noted in my opening statement,

is a horse owner, and we very much welcome your interest in this

issue and your testimony today.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON SHERWOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. Good morning,

and Ranking Member Peterson and members of the Agriculture

Committee.

I very much appreciate today the opportunity to be here and

share with you my thoughts on H.R. 503. That bill would amend

the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting,

moving, delivering, receiving, processing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human

consumption. It doesn’t say what you do with them.

The reason that I feel compelled to testify is that I have been involved with horses all my life, and for the last 32 or so years I have

spent my spare time breeding, raising, training and showing Belgian draft horses. No one is a bigger horse lover than I. At most

times my partner and I have had between 10 and 20 Belgians on

our farm, so that I more than most understand the emotional attachment that we all have for horses.

But horse owners need a way to deal with horses that are no

longer needed or no longer healthy, or sound, or can’t be trained

or handled. The market has developed a way that is economically

viable to dispose of these horses that are unwanted or unusable.

That slaughter market is important for the equine industry for the

same reason that it is to the dairy industry.

Think of the extension of this law. Suppose we passed a law that

dairy cattle, after they have given milk and been in people’s herds

for years, could not be slaughtered. There would be thousands and

thousands and thousands of them. Fortunately, when a dairy cow

ruined by mastitis or becomes a poor producer, she would quickly

become a financial drain to her owner, but fortunately for the

dairyman, the meat animal industry is there to claim that cow, relieving the owner of a financial burden and providing useful and

nutritious food. You know, that is not the choice steaks, porterhouse or tenderloin that we would like put on the grill, but nonetheless good beef.

There is no reason that Congress should destroy the similar market for unwanted, unusable or surplus horses. Even though we

don’t consume horses in our own culture, there is an active export

market.

This bill would have huge negative economic consequences for

rural America. It appears that there are about 70,000 horses a year

that for some reason become unusable or unwanted. With the average cost to maintain a horse in most parts of the country, maybe

not on range country, but to be approximate, $1,900 to $2,300 a

year, and with the exponential growth that you would see if you
13

add 70,000 to that pool every year, and only a few die, you soon

have hundreds of thousands of these horses that we would have to

be caring for, doing something with. The economic costs become

huge. Without sufficient facilities or funding, many of these unwanted horses would be neglected and face poor care, and even in

some cases starvation. The truly compassionate action for these

horses is to continue to have an orderly market for their disposition.

Some proponents of H.R. 503 argue that answer is euthanasia,

even though that means you don’t slaughter them, but you kill

them anyway. It doesn’t make a lot of sense. And then you have

to dispose of them, which as the chairman said, is a huge problem.

A huge problem for water quality, a huge expense. It is economically unsustainable, and it ends up with the same fate for the

horses.

The agriculture market economy has worked well in this country

for over 200 years. I don’t see any rational reason that we here in

Washington should start down this slippery slope that would hurt

our economy in a significant way, and probably end up with inhumane treatment of these surplus horses that we all feel so fondly

about.

H.R. 503 makes no economic sense whatsoever, and I can see

where it makes no compassionate sense. It should definitely be defeated.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Congressman Sherwood. We appreciate your testimony today. It is the custom of the committee not

to ask questions of panels consisting of Members of Congress, so we

will excuse you at this time, but again, thank you very much for

your passion and for your contribution on this issue.

We would now like to invite our second panel to the table.

Dr. Thomas Lenz, past president and chairman of the Equine

Welfare Committee, and also representing the American Associate

of Equine Practitioners, from Louisburg, Kansas.

Dr. Bonnie Beaver, past president of the American Veterinary

Medical Association from College Station, Texas.

Mrs. Tammy Pate, a member of the American Quarter Horse Association, and also a horse owner and trainer from Helena, Montana.

Mr. Frank Bowman, president of the Horsemen’s Council of Illinois, from Pleasant Plains, Illinois.

Mr. Paxton Ramsey, Young Cattlemen’s Committee chairman

and Agriculture Policy Committee member of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association from Devers, Texas.

The Honorable Charlie Stenholm, former ranking member of the

House Committee on Agriculture from Washington, DC.

We would like to thank all of the members of this panel for your

participation today. We would remind you all that your entire

statement will be made a part of the record, and ask that you limit

your remarks to 5 minutes.

And Dr. Lenz, we will start with you.
14

STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. LENZ, D.V.M., PAST PRESIDENT,

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF EQUINE PRACTITIONERS

Dr. LENZ. Chairman Goodlatte and distinguished members of the

committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you

today. My name is Dr. Tom Lenz, from Louisburg, Kansas, and I

have been an equine veterinarian for over 30 years. I am not only

a horse veterinarian, but an avid horseman who has owned and enjoyed horses my entire life.

My official role today is as past president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the current chairman of the

AAEP’s Equine Welfare Committee. The AAEP is a professional association that represents more than 9,000 equine veterinarians and

veterinary students worldwide with a mission to protect the health

and welfare of the horse.

I am here today to explain to the committee why the majority of

horse veterinarians in this country oppose H.R. 503. My two key

points today are the following: First, this bill will have a negative

effect, a negative impact on the health and welfare of horses across

the country, and offers no solution to the current problem of what

to do with horses that are no longer needed or useful to their owners. And secondly, horses processed at USDA-regulated facilities

under the supervision of Federal veterinarians are treated with

dignity and euthanized humanely.

In 2005, nearly 90,000 horses were sent to processing plants in

the United States. The vast majority of those horses were no longer

useful or of value to their owners. They were unwanted.

A horse can become unwanted because it has failed to meet its

owner’s expectations because of old age, poor performance or lameness; it may be dangerous; it may present a risk to its handlers;

or its owners may no longer be capable of providing physical or financial care. These are usually the lowest valued horses in the industry and bring only a few hundred dollars at a sale compared to

the national selling price for horses, which is around $3,100.

One of the most detrimental aspects of H.R. 503, from an equine

welfare standpoint, is the bill’s failure to address how and where

unwanted horses will be cared for if horse processing is banned. If

H.R. 503 is passed, nearly 90,000 horses next year will need to be

placed in alternative homes, or be euthanized and their carcasses

disposed of. And that number will incrementally increase each year

as additional horses grow old, encounter health problems, or are no

longer wanted.

There are a number of equine rescue and retirement facilities in

the U.S. providing homes for old and unwanted horses today, and

we commend their work. However, the capacity of these individual

facilities is usually limited to 30 horses or less, and we estimate

that current rescue/retirement facilities in the U.S. can handle no

more than 6,000 horses a year.

Additionally, H.R. 503 does not address the funding required to

care for or dispose of an additional 90,000 horses per year. Assuming a bare minimum cost of $5 per day for a horse’s basic needs,

which doesn’t include veterinary or farrier expenses, the funding

needed per year, per horse, is approximately $1,825. That translates to around $160 million to care for these animals next year,

or nearly $20 million to euthanize and dispose of their carcasses.
15

A final welfare concern for these horses is the fact that a ban on

horse processing in the United States does not mean a ban on

horse processing in our neighboring countries. H.R. 503 does nothing to prevent U.S. horses from being shipped out of the country

and ultimately to a processing facility.

The shipment of U.S. horses to foreign countries presents a number of serious welfare concerns. Horses will be on transport vehicles

for much longer periods of time traveling to foreign destination

points without the protection of APHIS oversight. More importantly, USDA humane transport to slaughter regulations and oversight do not apply to foreign plants, nor will USDA veterinarians

be on site at the foreign plants to ensure proper handling of the

horses and their humane euthanasia.

With a lack of adequate placement opportunities, no funding for

long-term care and no mechanism to stop the transport of horses

outside the U.S. to processing plants in other countries, H.R. 503

will increase the suffering of American horses, not stop it. Many

horse owners, unable to sell their low-value horses, will neglect,

abuse or abandon them.

My second point is that horse processing at a USDA-regulated facility is a humane, painless method of euthanasia for a horse. In

July 2002, several members of the AAEP leadership, including myself, visited the Beltex plant in Texas to view the euthanasia process firsthand. Two USDA veterinarians were on-site to inspect the

horses and oversee the humane treatment of the animals throughout the process.

During our visit, we witnessed a professionally run operation

that treated the horses with dignity and euthanized them humanely. The horses were handled calmly and were neither frightened nor abused. In addition, brand inspectors were present when

horses were unloaded to ensure that none of them had been stolen.

The euthanasia method that is used on horses at the processing

facilities is a captive bolt, which penetrates the horse’s skull and

renders the animal instantaneously unconscious and brain dead. It

is rapid, and it is humane.

In closing, I want to state that the AAEP does not favor processing as a way of dealing with the unwanted horses, but it is an acceptable option until the horse industry can develop an effective

plan for dealing with the horses that are no longer useful or wanted. We believe the equine industry must work together to help

these animals through education and encouraging responsible

horse ownership. That is why the Unwanted Horse Coalition was

formed in 2005 by the AAEP, and now operating under the American Horse Council.

Society has been working a similar problem with dogs and cats

for years, and yet we still euthanized millions of animals each year

at humane shelters. Solving this very similar issue in the horse industry will take time, but the industry has deemed it an important

priority and is working to solve it. That is why it is premature to

ban the humane euthanasia of horses at processing facilities.

H.R. 503 will compound the problems of unwanted horses by

banning one of the few available mechanisms to humanely remove

these horses from the horse population. Most of the people supporting this bill are well intentioned, but ill informed about the con-
16

sequences of this legislation. They are motivated by emotion and

not by fact.

We, the horse veterinarians of this country, are on the front line

in the day to day health care of our Nation’s horses, and we know

that passage of this bill will offer no solutions, but will in fact create more welfare problems. If passed, it will have a serious negative effect on the health and welfare of tens of thousands of horses

in this country.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lenz appears at the conclusion

of the hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Dr. Lenz. Dr. Beaver, we are pleased

to have you with us today as well.

STATEMENT OF BONNIE V. BEAVER, D.V.M.; PAST PRESIDENT,

AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

Dr. BEAVER. Thank you.

Distinguished Congressmen, my name is Bonnie Beaver and I

am a past president of the American Veterinary Medical Association. I am here to explain why the AVMA is opposed to H.R. 503.

In addition to my short biography, which you have, I want to

mention my involvement with horses. As a child, Roy Rogers was

my hero and I named my first horse Trigger. I have owned and

shown horses almost my whole life, and I am past president of the

Palomino Horse Breeders of America. Because horses were my passion, I became a veterinarian. They remain my passion, and that

is why I am here today.

I strongly support the AVMA’s opposition to H.R. 503 because it

does not adequately address certain issues that are important for

the welfare for. We are also concerned about misinformation that

continues to be circulated regarding euthanasia techniques.

First, let me discuss the misconceptions. The AVMA convened a

panel of experts, veterinarians and scientists, including a HSUS

member, to evaluate the research status of chemical and physical

euthanasia methods. I chaired that panel. The report, a copy of

which has been provided for the record, defines euthanasia as ‘‘humane death’’ in which unconsciousness comes quickly in the process. The AVMA panel report recommends two types of euthanasia

for horses; an overdose of barbiturate anesthesia and the use of a

penetrating captive bolt with appropriate restraint.

The penetrating captive bolt is not a stun gun. It causes instantaneous death due to the destruction of brain tissue. Let me repeat,

instantaneous death. The comments about appropriate restraint do

not mean that the horse’s head must be completely immobilized,

but instead that it should be in a position to allow skin contact

with the penetrating captive-bolt.

No form of euthanasia is pretty to watch. Terminal movements

after brain death can easily be misinterpreted as struggling efforts.

There is also the misconception that horses panic when they come

into a restraint box. In fact, causing excitement or panic in horses

can result in injury to both the horse and persons nearby. Instead,

working the animals quietly, as required by USDA regulations, allows the horse to enter the restraint box without injury. Once in
17

confinement, horses become passive because they recognize their

instinctive ability to flee has been thwarted.

We understand that the supporters of H.R. 503 are arguing that

the transportation of horses to slaughter plants is also inhumane.

I would remind you that the current USDA regulations, which we

have included for the written record, were developed and implemented with significant input from the AVMA, AAEP, other horse

groups, as well as from HSUS and other groups arguing against

the very regulations they helped design.

Welfare is the biggest concern of the AVMA for those horses that

would be impacted by a ban on horse slaughter. Currently, horse

rescue and retirement facilities in the United States have a maximum capacity of about 6,000 horses. It would be an extreme challenge to create facilities for 15 times that number each year.

As shown by the Horse Welfare Coalition Fiscal Impact document, which is been included for the record, and as already experienced in the case of wild horses in the western United States, the

cumulative costs for a large number of horses is very expensive.

H.R. 503 does not address financial support required for the care

of these horses given up by their owners, and the inadequate funding has a huge potential to create opportunities for inadequate facilities and care. Watching a horse slowly die from starvation or

disease is not only distressing, it is cruel. Furthermore, horse retirement facilities are not regulated, so there is no way to ensure

the horses living there will receive adequate care.

Carcass disposal of euthanized horses can create wildlife and environmental concerns. Scavenger species can be killed by chemical

agents in discarded tissues, burial is not permitted in many areas,

and chemicals can contaminate the soil. Euthanasia, carcass removal, burial and cremation are each expensive.

The AVMA is concerned that a well-intended effort will have serious consequences on the welfare of unwanted horses. The people

supporting this bill fail to take into account the ramifications that

would result from its passage. They are making this into an emotionally charged issue instead of offering solutions to the problems

that would be created. We ask that you please do what is right for

the horses’ welfare and not support H.R. 503.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Beaver appears at the conclusion

of the hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Beaver.

Mrs. Pate, we are pleased to have your testimony.

STATEMENT OF TAMMY PATE, AMERICAN QUARTER HORSE

ASSOCIATION; HORSE OWNER, BREEDER, AND TRAINER

Mrs PATE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good

morning. My name is Tammy Pate, and I am a lifelong

horsewoman, cowgirl, horse breeder and trainer. But most importantly, I am a horse lover. As a matter of fact, I am not unlike the

majority of people who own horses in this country; a woman with

a family who owns horses whose average market value is less than

$5,000. It is a level at which I can afford to own and be active in

the horse community.
18

I am here today on behalf of the American Quarter Horse Association and all responsible horse owners. I am proud to be a member of the AQHA and an own a breed of horse that is widely considered to be the most versatile horse in the world. He excels in many

different activities and the American Quarter Horses are owned by

children, moms and dads, 4–H members and people from nearly

every walk of life and economic background.

AQHA encourages responsible breeding practices through many

programs and helps educate its members to be responsible horse

owners. AQHA is the only breed association in the industry to have

a breeder referral program, whose members practice responsible

breeding, abide by a code of ethics, are screened by AQHA and assist people who want to own horses.

I started riding before I could walk, and I rode my very own

horse, a pony, at age 3. Today, my family starts colts and together

we conduct clinics around the country educating the public on low

stress horsemanship and livestock handling. My husband, Curt,

and I, along with our two children live on a small horse property

in Helena, Montana, and we spend a lot of time with our horses.

Curt is a member of AQHA’s Association of Professional Horsemen and is currently touring the country on behalf of AQHA conducting clinics on starting horses and being a responsible horse

owner. AQHA’s Association of Professional Horsemen, which has

791 U.S. members, is the only such program of its type in the industry and its members are available to help owners with any

riding disciple. Like the breeder referral program, each professional

is required to abide by a code of ethics.

Curt and I do not support H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. As horse lovers, neither Curt nor I would ever

want to see a horse mistreated, neglected, or starved. Low stress

horsemanship is something we teach daily. Our method involves

teaching people how to understand a horse’s natural instincts, develop a relationship and communicate better based on that understanding.

Currently, H.R. 503 does nothing to address what would happen

to those unwanted or unusable horses that normally would be humanely euthanized in one of the U.S.’s three slaughter plants.

In preparation for this testimony, I have seen reports and read

where people, animal rights activists, have exaggerated and painted a gruesome, shocking and horrible death that horses at slaughter plants endure. These include videos that are old and not identified as to origin. In addition, there has been testimony based on

visits that occurred at least 10 years ago to processing plants that

no longer exist. These visits also occurred prior to the adoption of

the USDA’s regulations governing the transport to and treatment

of horses at processing plants.

On our ranch, we have slaughtered animals, primarily cattle,

and we are grateful to have that right. Slaughtering an animal

isn’t something many people like to think about, much less talk

about, but to characterize it the way in which it has been by the

proponents of this bill is inaccurate and only meant to inflame and

lead you to draw wrong conclusions. Slaughter by its very nature

might not be a pleasant topic, but in some cases, sending a horse
19

to be humanely euthanized at a processing facility is the right

thing to do.

As much as I love horses, I understand and accept that not all

horses are alike and that over time some can become unruly, dangerous, infirm or their owners, for whatever reasons, no longer use

them, and I am experiencing this firsthand.

While Curt and I always hope that none of our horses will ever

have to be sent to a slaughter facility, we also recognize that our

circumstances are very different from those asking you to ban

slaughter in the United States. We differ economically, and we own

a small ranch and are committed to environmentally conscious

ranching practices. We currently own a horse who, if allowed to

live, will likely only endure a life of pain and suffering. We are exploring all available options and it may be best for her to end her

life at a processing facility.

For sure, this is not an easy decision, and as advocates of the

horse, my family and I still struggle with this decision. In the long

run, however, we both recognize good judgment and sound reasoning must win over sensationalism and emotion. Breeding this mare

or passing her problems along to others is not being a responsible

breeder or a common sense horse owner.

The option of sending a horse for processing at one of the U.S.’s

three plants must remain available to those who need it so long as

measures ensuring humane transportation and treatment of horses

are in place. Thanks to this committee, those guidelines exist

today.

I have also heard many people talk about their horses being pets.

Every day I experience what horses do for people. However, horses

are livestock, they are not pets. If some cultures consume horses,

it is their right to do so, but I don’t believe that H.R. 503 should

be about human consumption of horsemeat. It should be about

doing what is in the best interest for America’s unwanted horses.

Banning this option is not doing what is best for the horses.

Living in Montana, I can tell you how sad and unfortunate it is

when un-adoptable wild horses are condemned to live out the remainder of their lives in a feedlot. Quality of life should be an

issue. I also can tell you how much it costs to care for horses and

the financial burden this ban would create. It is very reasonable to

expect that a portion of these unwanted horses, those that do go

to slaughter, will be abandoned. Perhaps not here in the middle of

Washington, DC, but on the plains of Montana and other locations

too numerous to mention, we will see it happen.

Over the years, I have had many horses, and I have loved each

of them, and thanks to my grandparents, parents, husband and

now children, I have so far lived a life fulfilled thanks to our

horses. I always dread the day when I must make the most difficult decision ever; what to do when it comes time to end one of

my horse’s lives. I support horse processing as an option for owners

and encourage this committee to please do the same. As simply and

plainly as I can tell you, sometimes it is the best option.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Pate appears at the conclusion

of the hearing.]
20

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Pate, for that heartfelt testimony.

Mr. Bowman, welcome.

STATEMENT OF FRANK S. BOWMAN, PRESIDENT, THE

HORSEMEN’S COUNCIL OF ILLINOIS

Mr. BOWMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Nobody here today stands in opposition to animal welfare and

the humane treatment of horses or any other livestock species

throughout their entire life cycle. Nobody disputes the horse’s important role in battle and exploration throughout history. I am certainly not here to argue the burden that horses have carried for

mankind in the making of this great country, but I am here to oppose the prohibition considered in H.R. 503 and to discuss the inability of State and local governments to meet the challenge imposed by its passage.

The issue of horse slaughter is extremely divisive for the horse

community, and in my position as president of the Horsemen’s

Council of Illinois I have been on the front line in planning sessions

and meetings with equine professionals, horse owners and industry

leaders from across Illinois, and across the country, on this issue.

Discussions on horse slaughter always bring out the full range of

emotions that you would expect in similar discussions on capital

punishment, or even abortion.

However, the prohibition considered in H.R. 503 is not about providing protections for family pets or derby winners. It is not about

preserving a piece of American history, a child’s joy, or the wind

in your hair. H.R. 503 seeks to remove a humane tool used to manage the overall health of the national horse herd. H.R. 503 begins

a paradigm shift in property rights as they apply to all livestock.

When you strip away all the emotion, H.R. 503 is about animal

rights, not animal welfare.

As you know, there is an enormous difference between animal

‘‘welfare’’ laws, which seek to protect and enhance humane treatment of animals, and animal ‘‘rights’’ laws, which seek to give legal

standing and end the beneficial use, enjoyment and ownership of

animals. H.R. 503 is an obvious animal rights bill and will not benefit or enhance animal welfare in the United States.

There are no fundable alternatives presented in the bill. There

is no oversight provision in the bill proposed for managing the

growing number of equine rescue and retirement facilities cropping

up all across the country. There is no support extended for the

many State and local agencies that will face the challenge and bear

the cost for housing abandoned and un-adoptable horses. Nor are

there any programs proposed or created for the education of horse

owners or population control measures, such as spay and castration

assistance, through local veterinarians and animal shelters, which

are aimed at the cause.

The majority of hose owners are not wealthy landholders. The

average horse owner in the United States typically has one to three

horses on a large suburban lot or a small acreage, mainly for recreation. Many are just treading above water financially, some aren’t

doing that well, but they all love their horses and their chosen

equestrian lifestyle. It is our fear that through the prohibition in
21

H.R. 503 the lower end, the unemployable and the otherwise unwanted animals which have historically been harvested through

slaughter may suffer increased neglect and begin to place an additional burden on State and local governments, humane societies

and animal shelters, which are simply incapable of taking on the

responsibility for more than 90,000 unwanted horses every year.

Through this legislation some horse owners who, for whatever

reason, can no longer afford to feed their animals, provide for needed veterinary care, pay for euthanasia and burial or have no ability

to sell the animal quickly through private treaty, may also lose the

ability to divest themselves of the animal through a livestock auction. It is my concern that such owners may simply decide to cut

their losses and turn the horses loose to graze on public lands and

in national forests, thereby adding to the burden for government

agencies, including USDA and BLM.

H.R. 503 is not a free vote. There are nearly 2 million horse owners in the U.S. who will be affected by your decision on this issue.

Nearly every State and local government will feel the far-reaching

effects of this legislation, if passed. The future minimum value of

horses as livestock hangs in the balance here today as well.

Please join us, and nearly every professional equine and livestock

organization across the country, in our efforts to promote responsible breeding, developing alternatives to slaughter and educating

horse owners to the responsibility they have for the welfare of their

animals. Help us bring the general public to understand the joys

of interacting with horses. Let us work toward the ultimate welfare

of our horses, not legislating prohibitions through unfunded mandates and taking property rights. I urge you to vote no on H.R. 503.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowman appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bowman.

Mr. Ramsey, welcome.

STATEMENT OF PAXTON RAMSEY, MEMBER, NATIONAL

CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION; TEXAS AND SOUTHWESTERN CATTLE RAISERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. RAMSEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good

morning. My name is Paxton Ramsey, and I am a rancher and

horseman from Devers, Texas, and it is my honor and pleasure to

be here today to talk to you about H.R. 503.

Horses have been an important part of ranching in that they

help us in our daily activities and have played a crucial role in developing the U.S. cattle business into what it is today. These horses

are tools, they are companions, and in my opinion, one of God’s

masterpieces. With that said, I can assure you that I give them utmost respect, care and attention that they deserve. Besides starting

our family’s ranch in 1904, my great-grandfather was also involved

in the horse industry. He made a name for himself as he broke

horses for Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, and he started what became

a 200 head band of mares in my grandfather’s generation that were

well known for their ability to make good ranches into great

ranches.

Today we have downsized to roughly 60 head due to the modern

day expenses for appropriate health care for horse herds of large
22

numbers. Unfortunately, we must recognize that not all horse owners are passionate, nor are they responsible in caring for these animals. Many horses become sick, lame, no longer useable as they

once were, unmanageable or unruly. Sally Ramsey, my aunt, was

killed by just such a horse on her ranch in Junction, Texas in 1991.

Not a pleasant experience, I assure you. These are just a few reasons that a horse may become unwanted and dealt with in a humane fashion.

First and foremost, we have to remember that the processing of

horses is just one of many different management options for owners to consider. Other options include adoption, rehabilitation, donation, and private purchase. This brings up a good point. The

money received for a processed horse is roughly one-tenth or less

than what its value would be as a usable horse. I am sure that in

most cases a horse sold for processing is sold under these conditions because the owner has exhausted all other options. Contrary

to popular belief, this is not a group of thieves running around

stealing horses in the night and slaughtering them for huge profits.

These processing plants are strictly regulated by the USDA, and in

the case of my home State of Texas, brand inspectors are on hand

to ensure that the horses are not stolen.

Since 1997, by mandate of Texas legislature, Texans and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association has stationed inspectors in the

two horse slaughter plants in Texas to inspect, identify, oversee

and ensure that horse thieves are unable to utilize these plants as

an effective place of business. These law enforcement investigative

efforts not only deter theft, but also pursue and prosecute the offenders in their jurisdiction. In 2005, TSCRA recovered and accounted for 40 missing and stolen horses, with an average of 100

head annually recovered over the past 10 years. A perfect example

of this occurred this summer when a roping horse was stolen from

the Saginaw Rodeo Arena, just 2 miles from a Fort Worth plant,

but was successfully recovered by the TSCRA field inspection team.

I am afraid that eliminating the processing of horses as a management option will actually pose a risk to horse welfare. Without

the ability to recapture even a small value from the sale of their

unwanted horse, some horse owners will spend absolutely no

money to properly euthanize and dispose of these animals. Our unwanted horses under these conditions will now begin a slow and

painful neglect, starvation, and/or painful process that is sure to

end with a very unnecessarily inhumane death. My wife Erica is

a veterinarian in Baytown, Texas, and has been called in as a witness on a neglect case. She hopes to never do that again.

You have heard the horse welfare and veterinary experts talk

today about their concerns on how to address the 70,000 horses

that will require care, its cost, and the unintended mistreatment

of these animals in non-regulated rescue facilities, and the environmental concerns of disposing of carcasses. We agree with these experts because the H.R. 503 fails to address any of these issues.

Somebody, somewhere is going to have to pay for the care of these

animals, and more than likely it is going to be an American taxpayer. An additional concern of mine, as both a rancher and horseman, is the dangerous fact that this bill is solely based on emotion.
23

The groups supporting H.R. 503 have had to resort to playing on

peoples’ emotions because they know they have absolutely no factual basis to ban the processing of horses. Horse processing is regulated by the USDA under the Humane Slaughter Act, and faces all

the scrutiny and inspections that other livestock processing plants

do. Though it is not illegal, nor is it inhumane, the overall thought

of horses being processed for food is not appealing to me, nor to the

general public. However, the alternative will most certainly be

cruel, gruesome and a costly experience, especially for the horses

at stake.

The opposition talks about horses being mistreated while in

transportation to processing plants, mistreated in the plants and

accuses plants of willingly taking in stolen horses. There are already laws that address these issues, and if they need to be better

enforced, so be it. But let us not confuse the enforcement of laws

with the emotions that surround them. Leaving the law in the

hands of the emotional is a slippery slope, as has been said before,

and one that will affect all of agriculture.

One thing we must keep in mind is the availability of choice. We

have a choice how to manage our horses, and should be allowed

these choices, due simply to the fact that these horses are our private property. I firmly believe that it is Congress’ place to put laws

into effect to regulate the way livestock can be treated and penalize

those who abuse animals, but not to regulate how I manage my

property when the options I choose from are humane and are based

on sound animal production practices.

I appreciate the committee’s leadership in tackling this tough

issue, and I look forward to seeing each of you vote this bill down.

This affects my business and the businesses of many others with

no sound basis, not to mention the American employees at these

plants who will lose their jobs.

As a horseman, I can truly appreciate the oppositions’ affection

for horses, but I would encourage them to redirect their energies

by rolling up their sleeves and personally rescuing as many of

these horses as they can, rather than manipulating Congress with

no logical future plants intact. These types of actions will most certainly create much larger problems than the ones we are here addressing today.

I thank you for your time, and the opportunity to express my

views this morning, and I, along with many other ranchers, look

forward to working with you to defeat H.R. 503.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramsey appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ramsey.

Charlie, welcome back. We are glad to have you with us today.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM, SENIOR

POLICY ADVISOR, OLSSON, FRANK AND WEEDA, P.C.

Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a first for me

to appear on this side of the House Agriculture Committee, and I

must say that I am honored to be here today in this capacity and

with this panel, that represent the overwhelming majority of horse

owners and how they feel about H.R. 503.
24

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Ranking Member Peterson, for

holding the hearing to allow the information from the horse industry to get out, to have some of the misinformation that has constantly been circulated about H.R. 503, as I also thank Chairman

Joe Barton and Ranking Member John Dingell for the hearing that

was held in Energy and Commerce.

As you heard today, the U.S. horse industry is of major signifi- cance to the economy of United States, contributing over $40 billion. It is not only big business, but it also provides enormous

pleasure for millions of adults and children alike. Through 4–H,

and FFA, and numerous breed horse councils, children are taught

how to care for their animals. In fact, it is the rare exception when

animals are mistreated. But unfortunately, it does happen. Horses

that go to processing plants are protected by law as no other species are. There is no incentive for the plants to mistreat the horse,

because it costs them money.

Banning horse slaughter is very appealing to some, as is banning

the slaughter of beef, and hogs, and sheep, and chickens, and fish;

anything that is alive. But if you eat meat, something has to die.

Some ethnic and religious groups have different customs, and are

taught to respect different views. In our country, the overwhelming

majority approve of eating meat.

In the United States, there are some aspects of meat consumption for which there is overwhelming agreement. The animals that

give up their lives for our sustenance should be humanely treated

until and when they are euthanized before processing. There are

two accepted methods of euthanasia for horses; overdose of a barbiturate, or gunshot or penetrating captive bolt.

Now we proceed to another area of some differences of opinion.

What should happen to a horse after it has been killed/euthanized?

Should it be buried, rendered, or consumed? If you wish to receive

value for your horse, you may choose processing. If you wish to assume the cost of burying or rendering, that is your right.

But then there is another option touted by some; rescue/adoption/

retirement. That too is your right. For a few horse owners, this is

a good option, but for most it is not, because of cost.

Now let us look at the tenor of the debate that we have had thus

far. Proponents of H.R. 503 continue to mislead the general public

about how horses are processed. Just this Tuesday we had another

incident. Last Friday we had a pleading of guilty of the person that

burned the Cavelle Horse Processing Plant in Illinois in 1997. Justice is prevailing. Just this Tuesday someone, I don’t know who,

broke into the Common Horse Sense Web site, hacked in and proceeded to allow disinformation to spread over the Common Horse

Sense Web site. That is against the law. These are some of the

things that continue to go unnoticed by too many.

Having visited two of our three plants, let me say unequivocally,

as you have heard today from these witnesses, horses do not arrive

in poor condition. The truckers that bring them operate under very

stringent law, and they obey those laws. They are inspected by

U.S. veterinarians for soundness and signs of mistreatment. They

are housed in covered receiving areas with feed and water. They

move quietly down a narrow chute where they are euthanized.

They are dead instantly by penetrating bolt, and having toured
25

many processing plants, I can honestly and sincerely state our

horse plants do as good a job as humanly possible in following not

only the letter but the spirit of the law. And accidents do happen,

but it is extremely rare.

Horse processing is an integral part of the horse industry. Processing sets the floor price for the value of a horse. A floor price is

of major importance to middle income horse owners and small businesses, but obviously of lesser importance to upper income horse

owners. The value of the horse in processing is very important to

middle income horse owners. The cost of euthanasia and disposal

runs from $200 to $2,000 is of no small matter. Taking your horse

to an auction market where you will receive the benefit of competitive bidding for maximum value of your horse is an option that

must be protected.

Let us examine some of the suggested solutions to unwanted

horses by proponents of H.R. 503. Rescue facilities; current capacity is 6,000. They are full. The estimated cost of a rescue facility,

$1,800 per year. The general public is contributing some

$10,800,000 to provide the housing of these horses. Add to this the

cost of the BLM wild horses of 28,000, which we the taxpayers are

paying $50 million plus. Add another 90,000, which we will process

this year, at $1,800, that is $162,200,000 a year that somebody has

got to pick up the tab on. Who pays? The taxpayer? Private funds?

Horse owners?

One suggestion offered by the proponents is for Federal controls

on horse breeders, limiting the number of horses that can be bred

or shifting the cost to the owner. The question to be asked is who

is willing to pay the cost? While this can be interpreted as perfectly

sound free enterprise, it is valid only if you continue the option of

processing for those reasons.

Private property rights are important to most Americans. No

horse should go to processing over the owner’s objection. But if a

horse owner does not object to processing, why deny him or her

that right? I submit that all 300 million Americans have a right

to ask for humane treatment of animals, including horses, but we

do not have the right to fundamentally change an industry because

of the views of a few. And we most assuredly do not have the right

to abolish an industry with no compensation for taking.

Proponents of H.R. 503 make an issue of foreign owners. It is interesting to me when you have a Toyota plant in your State or your

district, do you object to the jobs that it brings? If not, it is the

height of hypocrisy.

Proponents of H.R. 503 make an issue that our horses go for foreign consumption. The U.S. is about to become a net food importer.

Our horse industry provides a net trade surplus this year in excess

of $50 million. The world will consume 4.7 million horses this year.

In America we choose what we want to eat. So does the rest of the

world. I see nothing wrong with that. We seem to get in trouble

every time we try to impose our wishes on someone else, which is

exactly what proponents of H.R. 503 are doing.

In conclusion, let me restate the obvious. H.R. 503 is the most

important vote you will cast this year pertaining to the livestock

industry and agriculture in general. It has broad ramifications, Mr.

Chairman, as you stated in your opening remarks, for the 2007
26

farm bill. If it should pass, the budget implications are tremendous;

over a billion dollars a year in the next 5 years. Or, if you say the

taxpayers are under no obligation to pay for someone else’s property, then how do you rationalize taking away private property

rights?

I want to make it very, very clear. If you are a horse owner and

you do not wish your horse to be processed for human consumption,

I am for protecting you and your horse from processing for human

consumption. But if you are a horse owner and do not object to

your horse being processed for human consumption, I am for you.

It is called private property rights. If you are not a horse owner,

I support your right to call for the humane treatment of horses in

the ownership, raising, and transporting and processing that is carried out under the supervision of USDA.

But what we are talking about today are unwanted horses. That

is the issue.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stenholm appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Congressman Stenholm. I want to

thank all the members of the panel for their testimony. We will

now proceed to questions, but before I do, I want to note for the

record that a request to testify before the committee was received

by the author of H.R. 503, and that request was granted, and an

invitation extended to the gentleman from New York to testify, but

he subsequently advised the committee that he was not able to participate. No other requests to testify were received from any proponents of this legislation.

Let me start with Dr. Lenz and Dr. Beaver. An estimated 90,000

unwanted horses are sold for food and feed each year. The alternative for many of these animals is another form of euthanasia or

placement in one of several sanctuaries. And I would like you to

discuss for us here on the committee the reasons why horses are

unwanted, and what decisions horse owners make that lead many

to being abandoned, mistreated and so on. Dr. Lenz.

Dr. LENZ. There are a lot of reasons why horses become unwanted or un-useful or not needed any longer. Some horses don’t

meet their owners’ expectations. They don’t win the horse shows,

they are not fast enough. Some horses have serious problems with

behavior. They can’t be ridden, they can’t be trusted. They are dangerous. Some horses become injured or lame. These are not life

threatening injuries, but injuries that prevent you from using the

horse and enjoying the horse, and then some horses become old.

Horses today live well up into their 30’s, and so it is estimated

that about 15 to 20 percent of the horses in this country are over

the age of 20, and that trend will increase as time goes on because

through improved veterinary care, and nutrition, and general care

the horses are living much, much longer, like all animals, and like

we are.

And so at some point in time people have to decide what to do

with that animal when they can no longer use it. Most of us, I suppose, can afford to retire horses or turn them out to pasture or let

them take life easier, let the grandkids ride them, but a lot of people cannot afford that. They can’t afford to keep the horse around.

A lot of people in my part of the country out in Kansas are ranch-
27

ers and they need the small amount of money they get from selling

that horse to processing to help buy the replacement horse they use

on their ranch, and we see that also with packers in the mountains

and dude ranches and so forth.

And so there are a number of reasons why. Some people can go

ahead and pay to have the horse euthanized. I think a survey done

by the AAEP indicates that average cost is near $100. It is much

higher in some parts of the country, but around $100. And then,

of course, you have to consider how you dispose of the carcass.

Most veterinarians will use injectable barbiturates to euthanize a

horse, which makes that carcass an environmental hazard. It has

to be buried or incinerated, because if wild animals or domestic

animals were to consume any of that horse’s meat, it would kill

them.

There is variation among municipalities and States as to what

you can do with your horses after they have been euthanized. Some

allow you to bury them, some don’t. There are only rendering

plants in about 50 percent of the States today, and so that is a limited option. And some of the other options, such as biodigesters or

incineration are fairly expensive.

So those are kind of the reason that horses become unusable, unwanted and how we take care of them. Dr. Beaver?

Dr. BEAVER. The only thing I would add is it is often a pony or

a horse that is obtained for a child, the child outgrows it, goes on

and does other things, has other interests, and the parent is left

with it. The parent has no interest in the horse, and over time they

try to find a way to get rid of it, and many times you will actually

find that these horses are suffering even before they are allowed

to be euthanized in one way or another.

The CHAIRMAN. Do some people find it emotionally difficult to

make that decision to euthanize the horse on their farm or on their

property, and therefore selling the horse through an auction process, which may lead to a slaughter plant, but might also lead to

purchase by another horse owner, is that one of the factors that

goes into the decision process for people who love horses?

Dr. BEAVER. Absolutely. It can be very emotional making the decision. We also see this with dogs and cats, as many of you are

aware, that it is easy to just give them up to a Humane Society

and just know that they are going to find a new home, rather than

realize that the majority of those animals may, in fact, be put

down. So it is kind of a way to get it out—knowing it can happen,

but you can put it out of your mind.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Beaver, I think it is the AVMA, maybe it is

the AAEP, but one of your organizations estimated the number of

unwanted horses that will be created if this legislation were to take

effect, I think the figure of 272,000 after 6 years.

Dr. BEAVER. There are a number of figures that have been

thrown out, but if we look at an estimate of somewhere between

60,000 and 90,000 unwanted horses per year; the number will vary

somewhat by year. If you figure that not all of those are going to

go into these shelters, that there is a death rate of approximately

10 percent per year, you can find that the numbers of horses is

going to increase very dramatically. It would take approximately 15

to 20 years for the numbers to level off.
28

The CHAIRMAN. And what would they rise to?

Dr. BEAVER. The number would rise to approximately 180,828,

and that’s assuming that a small percent of those are actually retained in retirement homes.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is the purpose of my question. Congressman Stenholm mentioned that the capacity of retirement/

sanctuary facilities today is about 6,000 horses. Does anybody have

a different figure for that? So we are talking about a difference

here between the current capacity of taking care of horses in horse

rescue facilities of 6,000 and a need of, by your figure, 172,000?

Dr. BEAVER. It’s 180,000.

The CHAIRMAN. I have seen others as high as 200-some thousand, but a difference of a factor of about 30 to 1 in terms of the

current capacity to take care of horses, and what need would be

generated by the passage of this legislation. Is that correct?

Dr. BEAVER. Correct.

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Thank you.

The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I admit I haven’t had horses since I was a kid on the farm, so

I haven’t kept up with this, but some of my buddies that are in the

horse business in Minnesota tell me that even under the current

situation, we have got people that are taking horses out and releasing them because they can’t afford to deal with them, whatever. Is

that going on now, even without this legislation passing, and to

what extent? Whoever could answer that.

Dr. LENZ. There is some of that going on. We hear about it. We

were on a BLM roundup a couple of years ago, and an issue that

we discussed out there is there are a fair number of horses that

are being taken out in the western States and turned loose. I think

the people think that they are doing the horse a favor, but usually

those horses, because they are not used to that environment and

not used to dealing with wild horses, end up starving to death or

killed by wild stallions. Occasionally in my part of the country we

will see a horse or two turned loose.

One of the bigger problems, and it has something to do with rescue/retirement facilities—there are people in this country that you

would call collectors, or hoarders, and they are well intentioned

people, frequently love animals, love dogs and cats or love horses,

but don’t know a lot about taking care of them, and some of the

rescue facilities that we see start up are started up by these type

of people. They don’t know how to take care of the animals, they

don’t know about proper veterinary care. They do love the animals,

and they ultimately end up treating a welfare situation that is

much, much worse for the animals.

And so if it comes to pass that we have to increase the number

of rescue/retirement facilities, there will have to be some regulation

at some level to ensure that they are operated in the best interest

of the animals, because today there really are no regulations like

that.

Mr. PETERSON. These numbers, the taking care of the animals, $1,900 a year, $2,300 or whatever it is, what is the breakdown of

that? How much is feed, how much is veterinary care? Does anybody know that information?
29

Dr. BEAVER. The breakdown on the $1,800 or approximately

$1,800 a year is basically all care. It does not include veterinary

care, it does not include foot care. It is basically for feed, for maintenance of facility to house that animal.

Mr. PETERSON. And somebody has an unwanted animal, and we

take an option of them taking it to a processing facility or to an

auction that would go to—so basically we force people to maintain

these horses. So you are telling me that typically they would not

give them veterinary care? I mean, are these horses going to actually be in a situation where they might get fed but if there are

problems because of the cost they wouldn’t go to a veterinarian? Do

you know anything about that, what currently the situation

and——

Dr. LENZ. Well, we don’t see as much today as we did years ago,

but you will see horses in pastures. I have some next door to me

and my place that the people—I guess the kids grew up and moved

away and they turned the horses out in the pasture, and that is

where the horses are. Their feet aren’t trimmed, I know they are

not vaccinated or de-wormed, and they live or they don’t.

It is not fairly common today, but if this type of legislation is

passed, it will become common because people will just turn the

horses out in their field, if they have a field, and let the horse take

care of themselves until they develop some type of disease or colic

or die of old age. I think we can expect to see a dramatic rise in

that.

Mr. RAMSEY. I would like to add to that also. My wife being a

veterinarian, we get a lot of calls day and night with concerned

horse owners who have a problem, and will go over the problem on

the telephone with my wife, and the issue of cost will arise somewhere in the conversation. And it is very interesting to watch and

see how many people, when they realize what she can estimate a

cost of helping that horse would be, how many of them opt not to

meet her to pursue that care. It is really a scary number.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is about expired, so I will yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I guess I direct this

question to our old colleague, Representative Stenholm, with lots of

his experiences. You know, I think most people agree that we have

a problem with unwanted cats and dogs that wind up strays, and

they live in dumpsters and here, there and yonder. Can you tell

me, Charlie, about the Federal Government’s experiences with wild

horses and borough programs that might provide some insight into

this discussion?

Mr. STENHOLM. Well, as I stated in my written testimony, we

now have in BLM supported facilities some 28,000 plus wild

horses, of which the Congress has determined that wild horses may

not be processed for human consumption, therefore we must provide a home. Many of these horses are in feed lots, which is not

the proper environment for a horse that you are concerned about

the general welfare, but that is the result of some previous legislation that has been passed here.
30

The cost of this to the taxpayer is now in excess of $50 million

per year. We know, or at least we are told, that on BLM lands that

the capacity is something like 28,000. We know we have 32,000,

which means some 4,000 are going to have to be added to the rolls

today. As you heard with the private horse sector, we are talking

about 90,000 plus. And it could go in excess of that, because the

horse population of the United States has increased since 1995

from 6 million to 9 million. And that shows there has been a demand for those horses.

But the BLM is the responsibility of the Congress of the United

States, and I would still, as I did when I was sitting where you are

sitting, would recommend that we pay a lot more attention to that

particular effort as to whether we are providing for the humane

treatment of our wild horses.

Mr. LUCAS. One last question. It is my understanding that California has banned horse slaughter, and that the proponents of H.R.

503 claim that there is no increase in abuse, neglect, number of

stolen horses are decreased. Would anyone on the panel who would

have experience or insight into that offer an opinion about that assessment of the effects of the California ban?

Dr. LENZ. Sure, I would be happy to. You know, in 1998, Proposition 6 was passed by the voters of California to ban horse slaughter or transport to horse slaughter, and the Department of Food

and Drug has authority to oversee that, but since then there have

been no violations or no citations written because there is no enforcement in place. And so they passed a law, but they have done

nothing to enforce it, so they really don’t know whether or not anybody is leaving the State, and they also at one time started to inspect horses at the border leaving the State, and they have discontinued that.

And I don’t have any hard figures, but talking to horse owners

and talking to veterinarians in the State of California, they tell me

that the horses continue to move out of that State, as they always

have. Nothing has changed at all.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time, please.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, is recognized.

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been a lifelong

farmer and rancher, and I still slaughter my own beef and pork,

and I like to eat good healthy meat, but I would like to ask for your

remarks on this comment. Doesn’t this legislation have far overreaching issues that, I as a meat lover, will maybe have to turn

into a vegetarian later on in life because you are not going to be

allowed to—your own beef or your own pork or whatever on your

ranch?

I think this is the real serious issue when it comes to private

property, and I would say that the humane way to address horses,

and I have had to put horses to sleep when a horse has broken a

leg or whatever, but fortunately in Colorado we were able to bury

these. I know that close to urban areas you are not allowed to do

that.

Could I have your comments on the overreaching legislation,

which I think is overreaching, and Congressman Stenholm, could
31

you also address the issue of how long this type of legislation has

been pushed in Congress? You have a lot of experience here.

Mr. STENHOLM. You know, Mr. Salazar, there are those among

us that choose not to eat meat, and that is fine. I have no problem

with vegetarians, and we have had numerous opportunities to have

discussions with them. Another answer I was going to give to Mr.

Lucas regarding the wild horses, there are those that believe

strongly that we should have no cattle on BLM lands, but only

horses, and they make the argument that horses take care of the

grass better than cattle. That is their right to believe that.

And I do believe that, based on other efforts and other parts of

animal agriculture, that there is among, at least a minority view

of this. I would not contend that everyone that is for H.R. 503 believes this. I don’t say that. But I do believe that those who have

managed to manipulate the story and the media, that is their desire, that we become a vegetarian country. That is a free country,

and I respect their right, but we are also a country of majority rule,

not minority rule, with strong protection for minority rights, and

that is what I believe this committee has stood for in the 26 years

I was privileged to sit with you, and what I believe that you are

still putting forth with your efforts on defeat of H.R. 503 today.

Mr. SALAZAR. And, sir, how long has this been going on since you

have been in Congress? You have a long 30, 40 years here, I guess.

Mr. STENHOLM. Oh, it has been going along way before I got

here, because we have always had difference of opinion. That is one

of the precious rights of this country, to have differences of opinion

and express them. But ultimately the Congress has to come up

with what the majority view is, and I have experienced those who

believe that we should not use animals in research. I experienced

firsthand at Texas Tech University the bitterness, the threatening

of life, the ruining of families by those who hold these outrageous

beliefs to meat.

But again, that is something that we have got to deal with and

deal with in a forthright manner, and that is why a hearing like

this, in which you have been able to hear from people in the business, speaking for an overwhelming majority of the horse owners

of America, what is the best policy for America. But you will still

have minority views.

Mr. SALAZAR. And would somebody else comment? I am an avid

hunter as well, and I like to hunt elk and I normally have to butcher the elk. And I wrap it, and I put it in the freezer and I eat elk

all winter long. Do you think that if this legislation passes that it

will actually, in the future, maybe have limitations on those of us

who like to hunt? And how will the Federal Government then be

able to manage wildlife herds? Would somebody comment on it?

Mr. BOWMAN. I guess I would like to just maybe make an analogy there. There are some doors that only open one way, and once

you cross that threshold, there is no going back. I see this as that

type of threshold legislation, pushing us toward that animal rights

agenda.

Dr. BEAVER. It has been argued that the horse is not bred for

meat production, and therefore, because it isn’t a meat animal, we

should not allow its slaughter. That same argument, then, can be
32

made for all the wild game that are hunted, and that imposes other

restrictions in the future.

Mr. SALAZAR. Well, I just want to thank all of you for your testimony. It has been something that I can concur with you on, and

I can just tell you that I love meat, so——

The CHAIRMAN. We thank the gentleman for sharing that sentiment. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Osborne, is recognized.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for

being here today. First question, I guess, has to do mostly with economics, and I would like to ask Congressman Stenholm if he has

any idea approximately how many people work in the facilities that

would be closed if this bill passes, and what the economic consequence might be from the bill?

Mr. STENHOLM. At the three horse processing plants there are

something in excess of 200 employees directly involved in the dayto-day operations. At the Beltex and the Dallas Crown Plant in

Texas, up to 28 jobs at American Airlines were once directly related to the exporting of the horsemeat at American Airlines. There

are numerous truckers, for example.

One of the things that gets overlooked quite often, and in what

I call the misinformation about the trucking of the horses and the

condition, the independent truckers that are involved in gathering

and delivering the horses are very numerous, and I don’t have that

number, but we will have it soon, the number of truckers that will

be involved, and as they begin to hear that this perhaps is going

to become law, you are going to hear a lot from the trucking industry, and it is a major industry of importance to agriculture and to

the horse industry.

Mr. OSBORNE. OK, thank you very much. This is a general question for anyone who wants to take a shot at it. Evidently the bill

has no mechanism to ensure that horses are not going to be abandoned. I think most everyone agrees that it will result in the abandonment of some horses at least, maybe large numbers, and so

what is your estimation as to how these horses will be dealt with,

who will be responsible for them, where will the financial burden

eventually fall? So anybody that has a thought, I would be glad to

hear what your opinion is.

Mr. BOWMAN. I believe that burden will fall back to the State

and local governments, very similar to what animal shelters and

animal control officers have now. We will see that in park districts

and forest preserves, and areas under their jurisdiction. We will

also see increases under National Forest personnel, under the

rangers throughout the country, as we have heard from the west.

We are starting to see that in the Shawnee in southern Illinois and

in the Mark Twain in Missouri.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Osborne, I would like to add to that. I think

you can draw a conclusion from what happens to unwanted small

animals that are released, and who assumes the responsibility. I

believe that it is going to soon become evident, and you will begin

hearing from your County officials as the potential that the cost

will become an unfunded mandate, as someone has to assume the

responsibility.

I was amazed at one of the proponents of this legislation suggesting that the Federal Government should pass a law that would
33

limit or restrict or govern the amount of horses that can be bred

so that there would not be a problem. That is one of the suggested

solutions out there for it, but I think that each of you, before you

cast your vote, and your colleagues that do not have the wherewithal to hear what you have heard today, I think it is important

that you consider that, because there is going to be a cost. Someone

has to assume that responsibility, and if this should become law,

these plants cease to exist immediately.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there are no other

comments, I yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from

Iowa, Mr. Boswell, is recognized.

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we need to

have a little levity here, so I am going to tell you a little quick

story. A lot of us up here have had horses all of our lives. I started

out preschool with a Shetland pony. Don’t ever give a Shetland

pony to a kid.

I had to carry the old stone—with burlap on it and I can tell you

lots of stories about that, and how unsanitary it was, but my pony

was called Sucker because I finally got a sucker and I laid it on

the well crib and the rascal ate it. I don’t know who was a sucker,

him or me for riding this rascal. There were times that I could

have probably eliminated him pretty easy. In fact, I had him to

school one day and I sold him, and my dad didn’t give me a spanking over it, so I felt like I must have done a good thing.

I am ready to vote on this, Mr. Chairman. I think I know what

to do. I don’t know how much longer we have got to drag this out,

but, you know, I think we have had excellent testimony. The industry knows what we need to do. I don’t want to take anybody’s opportunity to say what they have got to say about it, but I think it

is time for action.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s observations are well taken.

The gentleman from Alabama is recognized.

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

I was really debating about whether to ask a question, but when

my friend and colleague Mr. Boswell made his observations about

his Shetland pony, it reminded me about mine.

I had a pony, it was not Trigger, it was Mr. Magoo. That was

one of my favorite TV shows. Unfortunately, about a year and a

half after owning Mr. Magoo I found out that Mr. Magoo was really

Ms. Magoo. But he was so stubborn I had a hard time changing

his name.

I would love to ask Mrs. Pate, Mr. Bowman or Mr. Ramsey, or

really anyone from the panel, Dr. Beaver made reference to the difficulty and yet sometimes the peace that we have when we have

a small animal that we take to a shelter, in our heart of hearts we

hope that someone is going to come in and adopt that animal and

love that animal and give it the care and concern that we, for

whatever reason, are no longer able to do.

But I would love, from the other panelists who have not had a

chance to make a second comment, to talk about the difficulty in

having to make that decision to put a horse down.

Mrs PATE. Yes, sir. My family and I are trying to make this difficult decision as a family unit right now. We have a horse that has
34

become lame, and we can’t keep her. We have a small place, we

ride all of our horses, we use our horses. We have three horses that

will live out their lives in retirement with us. My daughter’s horse

Painter, I think we paid $2,500 for, but he is worth a million, and

he will live out his life with us.

But when it comes to the choice that we have to make regarding

this horse, we are not sure what to do yet. We are exploring all options, but I do know if we do make the decision to send her to

slaughter, I am confident in the process. I am confident that there

are USDA regulations mandating humane treatment and transportation of her to the facility, and I am absolutely confident with the

humane treatment that she would receive at the plant, and to her

quick and humane death.

I am very emotional about it because I do love our animals. But

I just feel that this is something that, as a private citizen and

rancher, that if this option is taken away, it is a personal rights

issue, and it will lead to inhumane treatment of animals.

Thank you.

Mr. RAMSEY. I would like to reiterate on that, also. We raise

horses, and I think people are unaware of the process it takes to

watch a horse be born, to wait 2 years before they are old enough

to even begin training, to spend years and years, at that point,

making that horse better and better each day, doing our every day

job. I have horses that I, unfortunately, spend more time with than

some of my family members, and they keep me out of trouble.

I am only as good as my tools, and we invest a lot of time and

heart in these horses, and to learn of the news that a horse you

have been riding for 6 years needs to be euthanized is an extremely

difficult situation, and I don’t care who you are, that is hard on

you, and that is a lot of time and investment is going to be taken

from you, and you don’t have a say so in it.

But I will reiterate what Ms. Pate says, that I am very confident

that if I can research all of my options, and I decide that a processing plant is my only option, I have no problem pursuing that option, because I am very confident in its ability to take care of something—or an animal that I have spent that much time and effort

into. They are truly part of a family.

Mr. BOWMAN. That type of decision is never easy, and it should

never become easy, very much like most folks would have dogs or

cats or other family pets, if you come to that point in their life

where you have to make that decision. That is one of the toughest

things you have to do in life. It is very much the same with our

friends, our partners, our horses.

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just think it is important. I know that the record will record these words, and sometimes it doesn’t record the emotion behind them. But I think it is

important when—Hollywood sometimes gets out and protestors go

on the street and make their statements, and the TV cameras are

on what they are saying. I think sometimes we miss an opportunity

to see the heartfelt love and passion that all of us who have owned

horses have for our horses. They truly are our friend, and I thank

the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.
35

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge, is recognized.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say to our

folks who testified this morning, thank you. I am not a horse

owner. I have never had one. I had a chance to ride one a time or

two. We usually had mules, and that was something to work with,

but I do have a brother and a son who are avid horse owners, and

have several of them. And I thank you very much for your testimony.

Mr. Chairman, I really have no question, but I do thank them

for coming and their comments this morning. I yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, is recognized.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the witnesses.

It has been enlightening testimony, a well-balanced one, I believe.

We had horses on the place most of the time that I grew up. I married into a horse family, my oldest son married into a horse family.

My granddaughter was on a horse before she was a year old.

I appreciate the comments across here about the affinity and the

love for horses. The practical application, this is what we are talking about here, and I have got a series of fairly short questions.

One of them is what is on the hoof price for a horse that might sell

that would go to slaughter? Dr. Lenz?

Dr. LENZ. Well, I have talked to a few of my clients that have

sold horses recently, and perhaps someone from the processing

business would know better, but they are bringing around $100 to

$150 per 1,100 horse, which would be an average horse in our part

of the county.

Mr. KING. That helps me. Thank you. And then there was a reference made, I think, that culturally we don’t eat horses, and I am

trying to reconcile that in my mind, that some of these horses are

going to be shot on the place, some are going to be drug back over

the hill and be consumed by various vultures and other carrion animals, and some will go, then, to protein that we sometimes reference to a dog food plant.

And so I am wondering if the people that are proponents of this

bill realize that there will be thousands of pounds of horsemeat

that might otherwise go to market and go to Belgium or France or

wherever it might be that otherwise goes into the dog food, which

would they prefer is one of those concerns. But I would like to add

to that question, is there a culture in the United States that exists

anywhere where people do consume horsemeat as a matter of habit

or practice or culture? Dr. Beaver.

Dr. BEAVER. Americans have eaten horsemeat in the past. During World War II when the shortage meat was being sent to the

troops, the folks at home did eat horsemeat. There are certainly a

few individuals. There isn’t a major culture that—there is, I think,

a fallacy about this dog food and horsemeat. Horse tissue, I don’t

believe goes into dog food at all, not that I am aware of, in normal

labeled dog foods in this country. There is some that is used in

zoos, but that is also on the decrease. So there really would not be

a market. These plants would close, is my understanding.

Mr. KING. Thank you, but I am also aware that there are occasionally horses that go through the sale barn that are purchased
36

by people of different ethnicities who take those horses back home

and slaughter them on their home place for their own consumption.

And if we are going to be culturally sensitive and multicultural

here in America, one would think we would make accommodations

for people that had those kind of values. Would anyone care to

comment on that?

Dr. BEAVER. It would be my understanding that this law would

not stop that, necessarily, and since it is an individual thing on

their individual farm, that they would be able to continue to do

that.

Mr. KING. But if they were purchased for human consumption,

this law wouldn’t prohibit that provided—what are the conditions

in the bill?

Dr. BEAVER. Do we always get the true word of what they are

going to do with that animal?

Mr. KING. In other words, it would be statutorily prohibited, but

not in practicality or functionally prohibited?

Dr. BEAVER. Correct, and if there is no enforcement of it, as has

happened with California, who is to stop them from doing it?

Mr. KING. For the sake of missing Charlie on this panel, I would

like to ask Mr. Stenholm to comment on that.

Mr. STENHOLM. Yes, there are certain ethnic groups that do

slaughter and eat horses as part of their culture. And the bill before us prohibits the transport. I want to make one additional comment to Mr. Bonner’s question a moment ago, and the question of

a lame horse.

A lame horse may not be transported by a commercial hauler to

a processing plant. An individual can bring their horse to a processing plant, and anyone that does not transport more than 20

horses per year is considered an individual. So there are very stringent rules, and you hear so much about the mistreatment of horses

in transportation.

But this is part of why I urge caution regarding our trying to impose our beliefs on others, whether it be religious or ethnic beliefs.

We usually get in trouble when we do that, and in this case we can

probably get in big trouble the same way.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentlewoman from South Dakota is recognized.

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any questions because my areas of interest have already been pursued by

questions already presented to the witnesses, but I do want to commend all of you for your testimony. As all of you have done, and

other members of the committee have done, and just sharing a little bit by way of background, how that formulates our perspectives

on this very important issue, I grew up on a farm and ranch in

northeastern South Dakota in a family who for many years are

members of the South Dakota and American Quarter Horse Association. My dad bred quarter horses. I always got the ones that

were slow out of the gate to take to horse camp in the summers.

The stallion, Stradivarius, had to be euthanized because of an illness, and is buried in our backyard, although that is the exception.

The others were sent out, and I always had a pretty good idea of
37

what was happening there as a young girl. So I appreciate all your

testimony, particularly that of you, Mrs. Pate, for your experiences,

as well as a mother, seeing your children enjoying those horses

growing up and know that these are difficult decisions.

But I do appreciate the testimony of all of you, and Congressman

Stenholm, thank you very much for your hard work on this issue.

I yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlewoman.

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, is recognized.

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Off

the subject a little bit, but I would like the record to reflect that

any introduction or description of Congressman Charlie Stenholm

that doesn’t make reference to his long roots in Texas is flawed on

its face, so Mr. Stenholm, I am glad you are here today.

I have been hungry in my life, but I have never been hungry

enough to eat oysters or horses. That said, how hungry was that

first person decided to eat an oyster raw? That said, though, to try

to get the controversy going on something else, is there any scientific data that says horsemeat consumed by humans, aside from

the issue of just humans eating meat altogether, but is there sound

science that says horsemeat is bad for us on its face and that we

should restrict the human consumption of horsemeat to protect

human health in America? Anybody? Yes, ma’am.

Dr. BEAVER. Any animal tissue going through the USDA inspection, being checked for drug residue as is typical for meat processed

in the United States, is safe for human consumption. There is no

data that says it is not.

Mr. CONAWAY. So were we to decide this issue in favor of H.R.

503, it would not be based on sound science as to the human consumption of horsemeat?

Dr. BEAVER. That is correct.

Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank all the witnesses. I have no other

questions, other than just to set the record straight, I do own a

horse. If you believed in reincarnation, and I don’t, you would want

to come back as my wife’s horse Pete. There was never a horse who

was more loved and cared for and cried over when he passed.

He is buried on our place there in Midland, and Poco will live

out his life on our property, but he is private property. I have a

right to dispose of him within the law. It is private property. If we

pass this bill, we have taken a giant step against private property

rights in this country, and particularly coming from the majority

side of the House, which we pride ourselves in private property

rights and personal freedoms, this is a step in the wrong direction.

With that, I yield back. Thank the panel.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Chandler, is recognized.

Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank

all of you for being here today. As I think we all know, it is a very

emotional issue for many people. I certainly understand your position, your very strongly held position on this point. I just have a

couple of quick questions. The first is could you give me a little bit

of an idea about the rendering process, how that works, and the

economics of that process?
38

Dr. LENZ. Well, the rendering is different from what we are talking about here. Rendering is where they take animal carcasses and

cook them to a temperature to destroy all the bacteria, and then

they use that carcass or byproducts of that carcass for bone meal

or meat meal or something. It usually goes back into animal feed.

I know that we only have rendering plants in about half of the

States now. When I was a kid, they were everywhere. When I was

young, they would pick up your cattle or your horses or whatever

and they would leave you some bone meal to pay for it, and then

they went to where they would pick them up for free, and now they

charge anywhere from $150 to $300, depending where you live.

So that industry has changed quite a lot, but I really don’t know

the economics of how large an industry that is in the country. And

they pick up, you know, cattle and swine and poultry and all animals.

Mr. STENHOLM. My information that there are only two rendering plants in Texas today, and they require a fee of $250 for purposes of picking up and disposing of a horse. And here I would take

this opportunity to say for the record, there is no horsemeat that

goes into commercial dog food. That is another issue that has been

controversial. The dog food industry decided to stop using the

horsemeat for dog food in that endeavor.

But rendering is one of the ways of getting rid of an unwanted

horse, but it is very costly to the owner.

Mr. CHANDLER. There is still a price associated with the rendering process to the owner of the horse?

Mr. STENHOLM. In most cases.

Mr. CHANDLER. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Sodrel, is recognized.

Mr. SODREL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank all

the witnesses. I think they have been very articulate and informative, and I appreciate you coming here today. In the interest of

time, I will yield back my time.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McIntyre, is recognized.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you very much for your testimony today.

It has been very enlightening, and, Mr. Chairman, no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, is recognized.

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick comment

and a quick question. Also I want to thank the witnesses here—

Dr. Beaver and of course Charlie also. I thank all of you for being

here.

I think the question is worth repeating. Charlie, if you don’t

mind me asking you this question. The Federal Government is

going to look at, I think your testimony was that it would—for the

managing of the wild horses that we have right now, it is about

$39 million.

If we adopt this bill, you are saying that it will probably cost us

in the hundreds of millions of dollars, is that correct? Could you

just elaborate, because I know when you were a blue dog Democrat

we were always talking about the deficit, we were talking about

spending. Could you just elaborate what the current status is and
39

what you estimate this will cost us as taxpayers? And again, I am

a big believer of private property rights, but I would like for you

to just answer this particular point.

Mr. STENHOLM. Well, you have to make certain assumptions, and

right now we know that there are facilities that the best estimates

that we have been able to come up with have the capacity for 6,000

unwanted horses, and they are full. And the cost associated with

that, as you have heard, is estimated at $1,800, give or take, depending on the facility, but probably in excess of that.

You have to assume, I would think, as a Member of Congress,

that if you abolish this option of processing, that something has to

happen to that additional 90, and some estimates now up to as

many as 120,000 next year, but these are all estimates. Someone

has to assume the responsibility.

Proponents, as I have stated, are suggesting that ought to be the

horse owner’s responsibility. This goes back to Mr. Conaway’s

point, one that we make, and you just made, and that is private

property rights. Is Congress, by enacting H.R. 503, going to dictate

that horse owners shall pay for the disposal through rendering, in

which it may not even be available?

Mr. CUELLAR. Right.

Mr. STENHOLM. How many, as you have heard Dr. Beaver talk

about, the numbers of horse facilities that would be required to assume the care of this many? These are all assumptions, which it

seems to me is on the very, very strong side of irresponsibility on

the part of Congress to pass a law without answering those questions.

Then what you have, as you have heard today from the horse industry, the overwhelming majority believe that it is not something

that they say should be the answer, but you have to maintain processing for the industry if you are going to minimize the cost and

maximize the value to horse owners, which is extremely important

since most horse owners are what we call middle income horse

owners, that do not have the opportunity and the wherewithal that

some of the race horse type folks would have.

There is room for all, and there is division of opinion among all,

but that is something that we hope you will take into consideration.

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Schwarz, is recognized.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Very briefly, for Dr. Beaver or Dr. Lenz, which

ultra-fast acting biomateriate do you use to euthanize a horse?

Dr. BEAVER. It is usually sodium pentobarbital.

Mr. SCHWARZ. In a very large dose.

Dr. BEAVER. It is a very large dose.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Enough to kill a horse, as they once said.

Dr. BEAVER. Enough to kill a horse.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Dr. Boustany and I, and I am a physician as well,

we understand what that will do. But the follow-up to that, as you

said, if you do that, there are some States or some jurisdictions

where you then cannot bury the animal?

Dr. BEAVER. There are some jurisdictions that you cannot bury

the animal, irregardless of how it is destroyed.
40

Mr. SCHWARZ. But does it have to do with the agent that you use

to euthanize?

Dr. BEAVER. No. In fact, the concern is if you do use barbiturate

for euthanasia, then that carcass is now contaminated and a danger to scavenger animals. So preference would be either incineration or burial so scavengers would not have access to that.

Mr. SCHWARZ. I could go a little ways with that, too. You walk

around with, you know, half-high scavenger animals for a while

from eating meat from an animal that had been euthanized with

pentothal, but I was just trying to trace the logic of that. I mean,

I see what the law reads and says, and I guess it is all right. It

seems a little illogical to me.

Dr. LENZ. There are landfills who will not accept horses that

have been euthanized with sodium pentobarbital.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Landfills won’t?

Dr. LENZ. Right. I have had clients whose dogs have died after

they had eaten a carcass that was euthanized.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Is that true? I will be darned.

Dr. LENZ. Yes.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Thank you very much. I am learning a few more

things about large doses of pentothal that Dr. Boustany and I don’t

use at our practices.

Dr. LENZ. Well, it tends to concentrate in the liver and the lungs,

and if a dog were to eat the liver of a horse, it would be a fatal

dose.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, is recognized.

Mr. MELANCON. I don’t have any questions, plus I think everybody is——

The CHAIRMAN. And I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Boustany, is recognized.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions,

and I yield back my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Larsen, is

recognized.

Mr. LARSEN. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that concludes the questioning by all

the Members present who sought recognition to ask a question, so

I am going to thank this panel again for a very outstanding job in

answering all of these difficult questions and in dealing with this

very emotional issue from a very factual standpoint.

I thank you all, and we will excuse you at this time.

Let me advise all the members that we are going to conclude the

hearing and then go directly to a markup on this legislation, as

previously noticed.

Without objection, the record of today’s hearing will remain open

for 10 days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from witnesses to any question posed by a member

of the panel. This hearing of the House Committee on Agriculture

is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee proceeded to other

business.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
41

STATEMENT OF TAMMY PATE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good afternoon my name is Tammy

Pate, and I am a lifelong horsewoman, cowgirl, horse breeder and trainer, but most

importantly I am a horse lover. As a matter of fact, I’m not unlike the majority of

people who own horses in this country—a woman with a family who owns horses

whose average market value is less than $5,000. It’s the level at which I can afford

to own and be active.

I am here today on behalf of the American Quarter Horse Association and all responsible horse owners. I am proud to be a member of the American Quarter Horse

Association and an owner of American Quarter Horses—a breed that is widely considered to be the most versatile in the world. The breed excels in many different

activities and American Quarter Horses are owned by children, moms and dads, 4–

H members and people from nearly every walk of life and economic background.

AQHA encourages responsible breeding practices through many programs and

helps educate its members to be responsible horse owners. AQHA is the only breed

association in the industry to have a breeder referral program whose members practice responsible breeding, abide by a code of ethics, are screened by AQHA and assist people who want to own horses. The nearly 400 members of the breeder referral

program are overseen by a committee of members who are all American Quarter

Horse breeders.

I started riding before I could walk, and I rode my horse, a pony, at age three.

As I said, I love horses and am indebted to them for the confidence and joy they

have provided to me and now my own family.

Today, my family starts colts and together we conduct clinics around the country

educating the public on low stress horsemanship and livestock handling. My husband, Curt and I along with our two children live on a small horse property in Helena, Montana, and we spend a lot of time with our animals. I hope one day you

will meet Curt. He is the most compassionate horseman I have ever known, and

throughout my life, I have come to know and appreciate many of them.

Curt is a member of AQHA’s Association of Professional Horsemen and is currently touring the country on behalf of AQHA conducting clinics on starting horses

and being a responsible owner. AQHA’s Association of Professional Horsemen, which

has 791 U.S. members, is the only such program of its type in the industry and its

members are available to help owners with any riding discipline or with training

their horses. These professional men and women are screened and selected by

AQHA and a committee of their peers, and represent the quality and dedication that

is worthy of their profession. Like the breeder referral program, each professional

is required to abide by a Code of Ethics.

Curt and I do not support H.R. 503—the American Horse Slaughter Prevention

Act. As horse lovers, neither Curt nor I would ever want to see a horse mistreated,

neglected or starved—gentle handling of horses and low stress horsemanship is

something we teach daily. Our method involves teaching people how to understand

a horse’s natural instincts, develop a relationship and communicate better based on

that understanding.

Currently, H.R. 503 does nothing to address what would happen to those unwanted or unusable horses that normally would be humanely euthanized at one of

the U.S.’s three slaughter plants.

In preparation for this testimony, I have seen reports and read where people—

animal rights activists—have exaggerated and painted a gruesome, shocking and

horrible death that horses at slaughter plants endure. These include videos that are

old and not identified as to origin. In addition, there has been testimony based on

visits that occurred at least 10 years ago to processing plants that are no longer

open. These visits also occurred prior to the adoption of USDA regulations governing

the transport to and treatment of horses at processing plants.

On our ranch, we have slaughtered animals, primarily cattle, and we are grateful

to have that right. Slaughtering any animal isn’t something many people like to

think about, much less talk about. But to characterize it the way in which is has

been by the proponents of this bill is inaccurate and only meant to inflame and lead

you to draw the wrong conclusions. Slaughter by its very nature might not be a

pleasant topic, but in some cases, sending a horse to be humanely euthanized at

a processing facility is the right thing to do. As much as I love horses, I understand

and accept that not all horses are alike and that over time some can become unruly,

dangerous, infirm or their owners for whatever reasons can no longer use them. I

am experiencing this firsthand.

While Curt and I always hope that none of our horses will ever have to be sent

to a slaughter facility, we also recognize that our circumstances are very different

from those asking you to ban slaughter in the United States. We differ economically,
42

and we own a small ranch and are committed to environmentally conscience ranching practices. We currently own a horse, who if allowed to live, will likely only endure a life of pain and suffering. We are exploring all available options and it may

be best for her to end her life at a processing facility. For sure, this is not an easy

decision and, as advocates of the horse, my family and I still struggle with this decision. In the long run, however, we both recognize that good judgment and sound

reasoning must win out over sensationalism and emotion. Above all, we want to be

responsible horse owners who use common sense. Breeding this mare or passing her

problems along to others is not being a responsible breeder or horse owner.

The option of sending a horse for processing at one of the U.S.’s three plants must

remain available to those who need it so long as measures ensuring humane transportation and treatment of horses are in place. Thanks to this committee, those

guidelines exist today.

I also have heard many people talk about their horses being pets. Everyday, I experience what horses do for people. They do amazing things for us. However, horses

are livestock, they are not pets. If some cultures consume horses, it is their right

to do so. Just because we do not do this in the United States, it is not up to us

to dictate what our global neighbors choose to eat. I don’t believe, though, that H.R.

503 should be about human consumption of horsemeat. It should be about doing

what is in the best interest for America’s unwanted horses. Banning this option is

not doing what is best for the horse.

Living in Montana, I can tell you how sad and unfortunate it is when un-adoptable wild horses are condemned to live out the remainder of their lives in a feedlot.

Quality of life should be an issue. I also can tell you how much it costs to care for

horses and the financial burden this ban would create. It is very reasonable to expect that a portion of these unwanted horses—those that go to slaughter—will be

abandoned. Perhaps not here in the middle of Washington, DC, but on the plains

of Montana and in other locations too numerous to mention, we will see it happen.

Another expectation is that some unwanted and unusable horses will be sent to

Mexico or other countries outside the USDA’s or Department of Agriculture’s jurisdiction. Other countries don’t have transportation and treatment guidelines in place

the way we do here. At least in the United States, we protect the dignity of even

the most unwanted or unusable horse by enforcing laws concerning care at slaughter facilities. Once an animal is taken outside of our borders, we lose this option.

Over the years, I have had many horses. I have loved each of them and thanks

to my grandparents, parents, husband and now children; I have so far lived a life

fulfilled thanks to our horses. I always dread the day when I must make the most

difficult decision ever—what to do when it comes time to end one of my horse’s lives.

I support horse processing as an option for owners and encourage this committee

to please do the same. As simply and plainly as I can tell you, sometimes it is the

best option for these horses.

Thank you for your time today.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. LENZ, D.V.M., M.S.

Chairman Goodlatte and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for

the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Dr. Tom Lenz, from

Louisburg, Kansas, and I have been an equine veterinarian for over 30 years. I am

not only a horse veterinarian, but an avid horseman who has owned and enjoyed

horses my entire life.

My official role today is as past president of the American Association of Equine

Practitioners and the current chairman of the AAEP’s Equine Welfare Committee.

The AAEP is a professional association that represents more than 9,000 equine veterinarians and veterinary students worldwide with a mission of protecting the

health and welfare of the horse. In addition to serving as chairman of the association’s Equine Welfare Committee, I also serve on the welfare advisory committees

of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Professional Rodeo Cowboys

Association, and the American Horse Council.

I am here today to explain to the Committee why the majority of horse veterinarians in this country oppose H.R. 503. My two key points today are the following:

• First, this bill will negatively impact the health and welfare of horses across

the country, and offers no solution to the current problem of what to do with horses

that are no longer needed or useful to their owners.

• Second, horses processed at USDA-regulated facilities under the supervision of

Federal veterinarians are treated with dignity and euthanized humanely.

In 2005, according to USDA statistics, nearly 100,000 U.S. horses were sent to

processing plants in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The vast majority of
43

those horses were no longer useful or of value to their owners—they were unwanted.

A horse can become unwanted because it is has failed to meet its owners expectations because of old age, poor performance or lameness; it may be dangerous and

present a risk to its handlers; or its owners may no longer be capable of providing

physical or financial care. These are usually the lowest valued horses in the industry and bring only a few hundred dollars at sale compared to the national average

selling price for a horse of $3,100. An animal that is unwanted becomes at risk for

neglect and abuse, whether intentional or not.

One of the most detrimental aspects of H.R. 503, from an equine welfare standpoint, is the bill’s failure to address how and where unwanted horses will be cared

for if horse processing is banned. If H.R. 503 is passed, nearly 100,000 horses next

year will need to be placed in alternative homes, or be euthanized I their carcass

disposed of. And that number will repeat each year, as additional horses grow old,

encounter health problems, or are no longer wanted. There are a number of equine

rescue and retirement facilities in the U.S. providing homes for old and unwanted

horses, and we commend their work. However, the capacity of these individual facilities is usually limited to 30 horses or less. We estimate that current rescue/retirement facilities in the U.S. can handle no more than 6,000 horses per year. What

will happen to the rest? Based on the number of unwanted horses that would need

placement after a processing ban, there are clearly not enough volunteers or placement opportunities available to meet the dramatic increase in horses requiring permanent care that H.R. 503 will create. Most local humane shelters do not posses

the funding, infrastructure, or facilities to rescue and house neglected or abandoned

horses.

Additionally, H.R. 503 does not address the funding required to care for or dispose

of an additional 100,000 horses per year. Assuming a bare minimum care cost of

$5 per day for a horse’s basic needs, not including veterinary or farrier expenses,

the funding needed per year, per horse, is approximately $1,825. That translates to

around 180 million dollars to care for these animals next year or nearly 20 million

dollars to euthanize and dispose of their carcasses. And that cost will increase incrementally each year as additional horses become old or unwanted. H.R. 503 offers

no solutions for where the money will come from to defray these costs. Inadequate

funding creates inadequate care, which is a significant welfare concern for these

horses.

A final welfare concern for these horses is the fact that a ban on horse processing

in the United States does not mean a ban on horse processing in our neighboring

countries. H.R. 503 does nothing to prevent U.S. horses from being shipped out of

the country and ultimately to a processing facility. The shipment of U.S. horses to

foreign countries presents a number of serious welfare concerns. Horses will be on

transport vehicles for much longer periods of time traveling to foreign destination

points without the protection of APHIS oversight. More importantly, USDA humane

transport to slaughter regulations and oversight do not apply to foreign plants. Nor

will USDA veterinarians be on site at the foreign plants to ensure proper handling

of the horses and their humane euthanasia.

With a lack of adequate placement opportunities, no funding for long-term care

and no mechanism to stop the transport of horses outside the U.S. to processing

plants in other countries, H.R. 503 will increase the suffering of American horses,

not stop it. Many horse owners, unable to sell their low-value horses, will neglect,

abuse or abandon them.

My second point is that horse processing at a USDA-regulated facility is a humane, painless method of euthanasia for the horse. In July of 2002, several members of the AAEP leadership, including myself, visited the Beltex plant in Texas to

view the euthanasia process firsthand. Two USDA veterinarians were on-site to inspect the horses following transport, their transportation/health documents, and to

oversee the humane treatment of the animals throughout the process. During our

visit, we witnessed a professionally run operation that treated horses with dignity

and euthanized them humanely. The horses were handled calmly and were neither

frightened nor abused as depicted on videos provided by proponents of this bill. In

addition, brand inspectors were present when horses were unloaded to ensure that

none of them had been stolen.

The euthanasia method that is used at the processing facilities is captive bolt,

which renders the animal instantaneously unconscious and brain dead. The American Veterinary Medical Association’s Panel on Euthanasia deemed this as one of

the two preferred humane forms of euthanasia for a horse. I know Dr. Bonnie Beaver of the American Veterinary Medical Association will address the process of captive bolt euthanasia for the Committee, so I will not expand upon the process. However, I want to stress to the Committee that if a horse owner is unable or unwilling

to provide adequate care for their horse, humane euthanasia by captive bolt at a
44

USDA-regulated facility is an acceptable alternative to a life of suffering, inadequate

care or abandonment.

In closing, I want to state that the AAEP does not favor processing as a way of

dealing with the unwanted horses, but is an acceptable option until the horse industry can develop an effective plan for dealing with horses that are no longer useful

or wanted. We believe that the equine industry must work together to help these

animals through education and encouraging responsible horse ownership. That is

why the Unwanted Horse Coalition was formed in 2005 by the AAEP, and is now

operating as part of the American Horse Council to address and resolve the problem

of what to do with horses that are no longer useful or wanted. Society has been

working on solving a similar problem with dogs and cats for years and yet we still

euthanize nearly 3 million animals each year at humane shelter. Solving this issue

in the horse will take time, but the industry has deemed it a priority and is working

to solve it. That is why it is premature to ban the humane euthanasia of horses

at a processing facility. H.R. 503 will compound the problems of unwanted horses

by banning one of the current mechanisms to humanely remove these horses from

the horse population. Most of the people supporting this bill are well intentioned,

but ill informed about the consequences of this legislation. They are motivated by

emotion and not fact. We, the horse veterinarians of this country, are on the front

line in reducing pain and suffering in our horses and we know that passage of this

bill will offer no solutions to the problem of the unwanted horses, but will in fact

create more welfare problems. This bill will have a serious negative effect on the

health and welfare of tens of thousands of horses in the United States. Thank you

STATEMENT OF BONNIE V. BEAVER, DVM, MS

• The AVMA opposes H.R. 503, The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. • H.R. 503 fails to adequately address the unintended consequences of imposing

a ban on the processing of horses. • The Penetrating Captive Bolt causes instantaneous death and is an acceptable

form of euthanasia for horses. • Transportation of Horses to Slaughter is highly regulated by the USDA. The

transportation guidelines were developed with input from the AVMA, AAEP, other

horse groups, the Humane Society of the United States, and other animal protection

groups. • Welfare is the biggest concern of the AVMA for those horses that would be impacted by a ban on horse slaughter. • There are not enough rescue and retirement facilities, and these facilities are

not regulated so there is no way to ensure that the horses would get adequate care. • The legislation does not address the financial support required to care for the

horses given up by their owners. • The legislation does not address the disposal of over 90,000 horse carcasses if

horse slaughter is banned.

Distinguished Members of Congress, my name is Bonnie Beaver and I am a past

president of the American Veterinary Medical Association. I am here to explain why

the AVMA opposes H.R. 503—The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

I have provided you with my professional credentials, but I also want to briefly

mention my involvement with horses. As a child, Roy Rogers was my hero and I

named my first horse Trigger. Horses were my passion, and had much to do with

why I became a veterinarian. They remain my passion, and that is why I am appearing before you today.

I strongly support the AVMA’s opposition to H.R. 503 because the bill does not

adequately address certain issues that are critically important to ensuring the welfare of horses that would be affected by it. We are also concerned that incorrect information has been circulated regarding what euthanasia techniques are appropriate for horses.

First, let me correct a few misconceptions regarding the handling and euthanasia

of horses. The AVMA convened a panel of experts, veterinarians and scientists,

which I chaired, to evaluate what was known about chemical and physical euthanasia methods. In that panel’s report, a copy of which has been provided for the

record, euthanasia is defined as a ‘‘humane death’’ in which unconsciousness is

rapid and followed by the cessation of vital functions. The report of the AVMA Panel

on Euthanasia recommends two types of euthanasia for horses-an overdose of barbiturate anesthetic and the use of a penetrating captive bolt with appropriate head

restraint. The penetrating captive bolt is NOT a stun gun. It causes instantaneous

death due to the destruction of brain tissue. Let me repeat—instantaneous death.

Statements contained in the panel’s report about the importance of appropriate
45

head restraint do not mean that the horse’s head must be completely immobilized,

but instead that it should be in a position to allow skin contact with the penetrating

captive-bolt. Involuntary movements after brain death are common in horses undergoing euthanasia, and are often misinterpreted as struggling by those without a

clear understanding of the process. Although such movements may be discomforting

for the people who are watching, such movements are not and should not be interpreted as an indication that a horse is experiencing distress.

It has also been incorrectly stated that horses entering restraint boxes prior to

application of the penetrating captive bolt invariably panic. In fact, states of excitement or panic in horses can result in injury to both the horse and people nearby,

so this is something those involved with the horse slaughter process work very hard

to prevent. Instead, and as required by USDA regulations, experienced individuals

handle the horse appropriately and quietly; this allows the horse to enter the restraint box without injury. Once confined, horses become passive because they recognize that their instinctive ability to flee has been thwarted.

Second, we understand that supporters of H.R. 503 contend that methods used

to transport horses to slaughter plants are inhumane. I will take this opportunity

to remind you that current USDA regulations on the transport of horses to slaughter, which we have included for the written record, were developed and implemented

with significant input from the AVMA, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, other horse-related groups and humane organizations. Among the humane

organizations involved were the Humane Society of the United States and several

other of the advocacy groups that are currently arguing against these regulations.

We have yet to receive a satisfactory response from these groups about why they

now object to the very regulations they helped draft.

Third, and foremost, the welfare of the horses that would be impacted by a ban

on slaughter is the biggest concern of the AVMA. Currently, horse rescue and retirement facilities in the United States have a maximum capacity of about 6000 horses.

It would be a daunting, and probably impossible, task to create facilities that could

house an additional 10 times that number of horses every year. Creating these facilities and properly caring for each horse in them costs money. As shown in the

Horse Welfare Coalition Fiscal Impact document, which has been included for the

record, and as we have already experienced in the process of trying to manage wild

Mustangs in the western United States, cumulative costs incurred for the care of

a large number of horses are high. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act

does not provide the financial support required to ensure that horses given up by

their owners will be adequately cared for, and inadequate funding has a huge potential to create opportunities for inadequate care. Watching a horse slowly die from

starvation or disease is not only distressing, it’s cruel. Furthermore, horse retirement facilities and sanctuaries are not regulated so there is no way to ensure the

horses living there will receive adequate care.

Finally, disposing of the carcasses of euthanatized horses can be expensive and

creates wildlife and environmental concerns. Euthanasia, carcass removal, and burial are each expensive, and cremation can cost as much as $1500. Scavenger species

can be killed by chemical agents in discarded tissues. Burial is not permitted in

many areas, and chemicals can contaminate the soil. Other disposal methods, such

as biodigestors, show promise but are not yet readily available. The AVMA is concerned that H.R. 503, although a well-intended effort, will have serious negative

consequences for the welfare of unwanted horses. The people supporting this bill fail

to take into account the ramifications of its passage. They are making this into an

emotionally charged issue instead of offering solutions to the problem of unwanted

horses, and are potentially creating more welfare and environmental concerns in the

process. We ask that you please do what is right for the horses’ welfare and not

support H.R. 503.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM

The U.S. horse industry is of major significance to the economy contributing over

$40 billion to the GDP. It not only is big business but also provides enormous pleasure for millions of adults and children alike. Through 4–H, FFA, and numerous

breed horse councils, children are taught how to care for their animals. In fact it

is the rare exception when animals are mistreated. But it, unfortunately, does happen. Horses that go to processing plants are protected by law as no other species

are. There is no incentive for the plants to mistreat the horse because it costs

money.
46

Banning horse slaughter is very appealing to some as is banning the slaughter

of beef, hogs, sheep, chickens, fish—anything alive. But if you eat meat, something

has to die. From the Bible to modern custom, the majority have eaten meat. Some

ethnic and religious groups have different customs, and we are taught to respect different views. In our country, the overwhelming majority approve of eating meat.

In the United States, there are some aspects of meat consumption for which there

is overwhelming agreement. The animals that give up their lives for our sustenance

should be humanely treated until and when they are euthanized before processing.

There are two accepted methods of euthanasia for horses:

1. Overdose of a barbiturate, or

2. Gunshot or penetrating captive bolt.

Now we proceed to another area of some differences of opinion. What should happen to a horse after it has been killed/euthanized? Should it be buried, rendered,

or consumed? Here we come to a fundamental, constitutionally protected right.

Owners of horses are protected under the Constitution as to the disposal of their

property. If you wish to receive value for your horse you may choose processing. If

you wish to assume the cost of burying or rendering that is your right. But then

there is another option touted by some—rescue/adoption/retirement. That, too, is

your right. For a few horse owners, this is a good option. But for most it is not because of cost. Currently the taxpayer cost of maintaining our wild horse surplus

population is $39 million per year on 28,000 head to which we are adding 2,000 to

4,000 per year. Who will assume the cost of adoption for another 60,000 to 90,000

unwanted horses per year? If H.R. 503 should become law, the 109th Congress will

assume that responsibility. Do the math. The cost to the taxpayer will quickly reach

hundreds of millions of dollars per year and increase every year thereafter—even

if we are able to adopt some of them out.

We live under the general concept of majority rule with strong minority protections. I think we are getting on very thin ice when we begin to tell other people

of the world what they should eat. The world consumes over 4.7 million horses per

year.

Some countries do not eat beef. Some do not eat pork. This is commonly called

freedom of choice. In some cases, freedom of religion is more relevant. When we,

by law, tell others what they may eat, we have to ask, are we next?

Now let’s look at the tenor of the debate. Proponents of H.R. 503 continue to mislead the general public about how horses are processed. Having visited two of our

three plants let me say unequivocally horses do not arrive in poor condition. They

are inspected by USDA veterinarians for soundness and signs of mistreatment. They

are housed in covered receiving areas with feed and water. They move quietly down

a narrow chute where they are euthanized. They are dead instantly by penetrating

bolt. Having toured many processing plants, I can honestly and sincerely state our

horse plants do as good a job as humanly possible in following not only the letter

but the spirit of the law.

Horse processing is an integral part of the horse industry. Processing sets the

floor price for the value of a horse. A floor price is of major importance to middle

income horse owners, and small businesses, but obviously of lesser importance to

upper income horse owners. The value of the horse in processing is very important

to middle income horse owners. The cost of euthanasia and disposal $200 to $2,000

is no small matter. Taking your horse to an auction market where you will receive

the benefit of competitive bidding for maximum value of your horse is an option that

must be protected.

Let’s examine some of the suggested solutions to unwanted horses by proponents

of H.R. 503.

Rescue Facilities. Current capacity 6,000. Full estimated cost of operation $1,800/

year per horse. Annual cost $10,800,000. Add to this the cost of the BLM wild

horses of 28,000 @ $1,800/yr = $50 million plus, which taxpayers are already paying.

Add 90,000 @ $1,800 = $162,200,000 the first year, 5 year estimated cost over

$800 million.

Who pays! The taxpayer? Private funds? Even the HSUS budget will not cover

this cost and they have not offered.

One suggestion offered by the proponents is for Federal controls on horse breeders, limiting the number of horses that can be bred or shifting the cost to the owner.

The question to be asked is what if no one is willing to pay the cost. 90,000 unwanted horses become an unfounded mandate on local governments and local law

enforcement. It will be the height of irresponsibility to vote for H.R. 503 without

addressing these questions.

While this can be interpreted as a perfectly sound free enterprise solution, it is

valid only if you continue the option of processing for those same owners. Owners

of horses who do not oppose processing, which evidence shows to be the overwhelm-
47

ing majority, do not object to any horse owner who wishes to care for their horse

throughout its life, disposing of it in anyway they see fit humanely.

Private property rights are important to most Americans. No horse should go to

processing over the owner’s objection. But if a horse owner does not object to processing, why deny him/her that right. I submit that all 300 million Americans have

a right to ask for humane treatment for all animals including horses, but we do not

have the right to fundamentally change an industry because of the views of a few.

And we most assuredly do not have the right to abolish an industry with no compensation for the taking, which most assuredly includes the value of all horses, the

value of which will decline if the processing floor price option is removed by passing

H.R. 503.

Proponents of H.R. 503 make an issue of foreign owners. When you have a Toyota

plant in your State or district, do you object to the jobs it brings? If not, isn’t that

the height of hypocrisy?

Proponents of H.R. 503 make an issue that our horses go for foreign consumption.

The U.S. is about to become a net food importer. Our horse industry will provide

a net trade surplus this year in excess of $50 million. The world will consume 4.7

million horses this year. In America we choose what we want to eat. So does the

rest of the world. I see nothing wrong with that. We seem to get in trouble every

time we try to impose our wishes on someone else—which is exactly what proponents of H.R. 503 are doing.

Regarding the charge that horse owners who sell at auction do not know that

their horse may go to processing. Simply put—when you sell anything you give up

title to that property. If you do not wish your horse to be processed into meat for

human consumption, do not sell it. Our livestock auctions do a great job of providing

sellers the opportunity to receive maximum value from competitive buyers. Horses

of value beyond processing bring much more money than those who go to slaughter.

But the floor is set by processed market. Everyone in the horse business knows that.

That is why the overwhelming majority oppose H.R. 503.

In conclusion, let me restate the obvious. H.R. 503 is the most important vote you

will cast pertaining to the livestock industry and agriculture in general. It has broad

ramifications for the 2007 farm bill. If it should pass, the budget implications are

tremendous—over $1 billion a year over the next 5 years. Or, if you say the taxpayers are under no obligation to pay for someone else’s property, then how do you

rationalize taking away the private property rights of the majority of horse owners

who do not object to their horse going for human consumption for value? Let state

as plainly as I know how. Proponents of H.R. 503 have used inflammatory, untrue

rhetoric about how horses are slaughtered. To the uninformed public, they have

been successful—including many in the media.

Let me be clear. If you are a horse owner and you do not wish for your horse to

be processed for human consumption, I am for protecting you and your horse from

processing for human consumption. But if you are a horse owner and do not object

to your horse being processed for human consumption, I am for you. It is called private property rights. If you are not a horse owner, I support your right to call for

the humane treatment of horses in the ownership, raising, transporting, and processing that is carried out under the supervision of USDA.

Defeat H.R. 503.
48
49
50
51

STATEMENT OF FRANK S. BOWMAN

Nobody here today stands in opposition to animal welfare and the humane treatment of horses or any other livestock throughout their entire life cycle. Nobody disputes the horse’s important role in battle and exploration throughout history. I’m

certainly not here to argue the burden that horses have carried for mankind in the

making of this great country, but I am here to oppose the prohibition considered

in H.R. 503 and to discuss the inability of State and local governments to meet the

challenge imposed by its passage.

The issue of horse slaughter is extremely divisive for the horse community and

in my position as President of the Horsemen’s Council of Illinois I have been on the

front line in planning sessions and meetings with equine professionals, horse owners

and industry leaders from across Illinois, and across the country on this issue. Discussions on horse slaughter always bring out the full range of emotions you would

expect in similar discussions on capital punishment or even abortion.

However, the prohibition considered in H.R. 503 is not about providing protections

for family pets or derby winners. It’s not about preserving a piece of American history, a child’s joy, or the wind in your hair. H.R. 503 seeks to remove a humane

tool used to manage the overall heath of the national horse herd. H.R. 503 begins

a paradigm shift in property rights as they apply to all livestock. When you strip

away all the emotion H.R. 503 is about animal rights, not animal welfare.

As you know, there is an enormous difference between animal ‘‘welfare’’ laws,

which seek to protect and enhance the humane treatment of animals, and animal

‘‘rights’’ laws, which seek to give legal standing and end the beneficial use, enjoyment and ownership of animals. H.R. 503 is an obvious animal rights bill and will

not benefit or enhance animal welfare in the United States.

There are no fundable alternatives presented in the bill. There is no oversight

provision in the bill proposed for managing the growing number of equine rescue

and retirement facilities cropping up all across the country. There is no support extended for the many State and local agencies that will face the challenge and bear

the cost for housing abandoned and unadoptable horses. Nor are there any programs proposed or created for the education of horse owners or population control

measures such as spay and castration assistance through local veterinarians and

animal shelters aimed at the cause.

The majority of horse owners are not wealthy landholders. The average horse

owner in the US typically has one to three horses on a large suburban lot or a small

acreage, mainly for recreation. Many are just treading above water financially, some

aren’t doing that well, but they all love their horses and their chosen equestrian lifestyle. It is our fear that through the prohibition in H.R. 503 the lower end, the unemployable and the otherwise unwanted animals which have historically been harvested through slaughter may suffer increased neglect and begin to place an additional burden on State and local governments, humane societies and animal shelters

which are simply incapable of taking on the responsibility for more than 70,000 unwanted horses every year.

Through this legislation some horse owners who, for whatever reason, can no

longer afford to properly feed their animals, provide for needed veterinary care, pay

for euthanasia and burial or have no ability to sell the animal quickly through private treaty, may also lose the ability to divest themselves of the animal through a

livestock auction. It is my concern that such owners may simply decide to cut their

losses and turn the horses loose to graze on public lands and in national forests

thereby adding to the burden for government agencies, including USDA and BLM.

H.R. 503 is not a free vote. There are nearly 2 million horse owners in the US

who will be affected by your decision on this issue. Nearly every State and local government will feel the far-reaching effects of this legislation if passed. The future

minimum value of horses as livestock hangs in the balance here today as well.

Please join us, and nearly every professional equine and livestock organization

across the country, in our efforts to promote responsible breeding, developing alternatives to slaughter and educating horse owners to the responsibility they have for

the welfare of their animals. Help us bring the general public to understand the joys

of interacting with horses. Let’s work toward the ultimate welfare of our horses. not

legislating prohibitions through unfunded mandates and taking property rights. I

urge you to vote no on H.R. 503.

Æ