PREVENTION OF EQUINE CRUELTY ACT OF 2008, 

AND THE ANIMAL CRUELTY STATISTICS ACT 

OF 2008 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 6598 and H.R. 6597 

JULY 31, 2008 

Serial No. 110–201 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

PREVENTION OF EQUINE CRUELTY ACT OF 2008, AND 

THE ANIMAL CRUELTY STATISTICS ACT OF 2008 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–830 PDF 2009

PREVENTION OF EQUINE CRUELTY ACT OF 2008, 

AND THE ANIMAL CRUELTY STATISTICS ACT 

OF 2008 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 6598 and H.R. 6597 

JULY 31, 2008 

Serial No. 110–201 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 31, 2008 

Page 

THE BILLS 

H.R. 6598, the ‘‘Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008’’ ................................. 3 

H.R. 6597, the ‘‘Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008’’ ....................................... 6 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 8 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 10 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Liz Clancy Ross, Federal Policy Advisor, Animal Welfare Institute, Alexandria, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15 

The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm, former Member of Congress, Texas 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 44 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 46 

Mr. John Boyd, Jr., President, National Black Farmers Association, Baskerville, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 49 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 51 

Mr. Douglas G. Corey, DVM, Adams, OR 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 55 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 57 

Mr. Nicholas H. Dodman, DVM, Co-Founder, Veterinarians for Equine Welfare and Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, Westborough, 

MA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 61 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 64 

Mr. Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, Humane Society of the United 

States, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 76 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 79 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 10 

Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security .................................................................... 111 

Letter from the American Quarter Horse Association, and the Animal Welfare 

Council submitted by the Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................................... 113 

Letter from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) ................... 118 

Letter from Charles W. Stenholm, Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Bode Matz 

PC, Attorneys at Law .......................................................................................... 121 

Additional Material submitted by Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC ........................................ 123 

Attachments to Prepared Statement of Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, 

Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC .................................. 232 

(1) 

PREVENTION OF EQUINE CRUELTY ACT OF 

2008, AND THE ANIMAL CRUELTY STATISTICS ACT OF 2008 

THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to noticel, at 9:34 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert 

C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Scott, Delahunt, Gohmert, 

Sensenbrenner, and Coble. 

Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Majority Chief Counsel; Jesselyn 

McCurdy, Majority Counsel; Mario Dispenza, (Fellow) BATFE 

Detailee; Karen Wilkinson (Fellow) (AOC) Federal Public Office 

Detailee; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member; Caroline 

Lynch, Minority Counsel; Kimani Little, Minority Counsel; and 

Kelsey Whitlock, Minority Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Committee will now come to order, and I am 

pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on H.R. 

6597, the ‘‘Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008,’’ and H.R. 6598, 

the ‘‘Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008.’’ 

According to many sources, animal cruelty is a widespread problem in the United States; however, the Federal Government does 

not collect specific data on animal cruelty crimes. 

The scant data that we do collect is usually mixed in with other 

crimes categories yielding little useful information. 

H.R. 6597 will establish a comprehensive and consistent collection of data on animal cruelty crimes providing heightened awareness for the problem of animal cruelty and assisting in determining 

whether legislation is necessary. 

H.R. 6597 directs the Attorney General to make appropriate 

changes in existing crime databases so that data on animal cruelty 

crimes will be collected, made available to the public, and Congress 

will have the necessary data for making legislative decisions over 

this matter. 

H.R. 6598, the ‘‘Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008,’’ addresses the continuing problem of cruelty to horses through slaughter for human consumption. 

2 

Despite the fact that in 2007, the last three horse slaughter 

houses in the United States were closed as a result of Federal court 

rulings, the practice of horse slaughter for human consumption has 

not gone away. 

After the closures of the U.S. horse slaughter houses, so-called 

‘‘killer buyers’’ simply increased horse exports to Mexico and Canadian slaughter houses. They continued their trade almost 

unimpeded by the closures, and their trade is lucrative. 

In some parts of the world horse meat is considered a delicacy, 

creating a high demand. In fact, as of September 2007, the number 

of horses shipped to Mexico slaughter houses has jumped 369 percent from the number shipped in 2006. 

The number of horses exported to Canada for slaughter increased 

by 46 percent. According to one study, four new horse slaughter 

houses opened in Canada between 2007 and early 2008. 

Opponents of these bills argue that horse slaughter provides a 

service that, without horse slaughter, the number of unwanted 

horses would increase dramatically, but this seems unlikely. 

Since 1990, the number of horses going to slaughter has decreased from a high of more than 350,000 horses to just over 

120,000 horses last year with no correlation—correlating epidemic 

of unwanted horses. 

Moreover, while data is scarce, many people believe that the 

large number of horses sold to slaughter houses were not unwanted 

but were stolen out of pastures and barns. 

In support of this theory, the Humane Society reports that when 

California banned horse slaughter in 1998, horse thefts dropped by 

34 percent. 

Opponents also argue that horse slaughter for human consumption is a form of humane euthanasia, but overwhelming veterinary 

sources suggest otherwise. They find that most humane euthanasia 

is via relatively painless chemical injection which costs about $225. 

Moreover, the slaughter process is very difficult to call humane. 

The slaughter process generally starts with the purchase of horses 

at a horse auction by the so-called ‘‘killer buyers.’’ 

The horses then travel long distances, sometimes more than 24 

hours, to the slaughter house with no water, food, or rest. 

Procedures for killing the horses at slaughter houses vary, but by 

all accounts, each is very disturbing. 

H.R. 6598 responds to this problem. It criminalizes the possession, shipment, transport, purchase, sale, delivery, or receipt of any 

horse with the intent that it be slaughtered for human consumption. The bill also criminalizes the shipment of horse carcasses or 

flesh for the purpose of human consumption. 

[The bills follow:] 

3 


HR6598-1.eps
4 


HR6598-2.eps
5 


HR6598-3.eps
6 


HR6597-1.eps
7 

f 


HR6597-2.eps
8 

Mr. SCOTT. It is my pleasure now to recognize the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Louie 

Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

Today’s hearing will focus on H.R. 6598 as one of the bills. This 

one would criminalize the sale, possession, and transport of horses 

if a person knows the horse would be slaughtered for human consumption. 

We will also focus on a second bill, 6597, which seeks to require 

the Department of Justice to collect data on animal cruelty crimes. 

It seems like there is a divergence of opinion on some of these. 

I know some of us were very concerned in the last Congress, when 

I was here for the first time, some of the inhumane ways in which 

horses were being put down in the slaughter houses; very disturbing. 

But then we did have information in the—my friend, Chairman 

Scott had mentioned the veterinary sources—and I know we have 

a witness that will address that. 

But, you know—then we got a letter from the American Veterinary Medical Association last Congress saying they were opposed 

to the bill to close the slaughter houses, actively pursuing defeat 

and then gave some factual information from their standpoint. 

Just this week, we have gotten a letter from the American Quarter Horse Association. It says it was addressed to Chairman Scott 

and to me and Lamar Smith, and also from the Animal Welfare 

Council dated July 30th. 

They were—the Animal Welfare Council says they want to express their serious concern regarding H.R. 6598. And then they 

raised some of the concerns regarding the bill that they have, and 

the American Quarter Horse Association expressed their regret 

about being able to get here for the hearing that they were not 

aware of until this week. 

And so I would ask that those two letters from Animal Welfare 

Council, and also the American Quarter Horse Association be entered as part of the regard with unanimous consent. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.] 

Mr. GOHMERT. But regarding the first bill, reading some of the 

information from those sources, I have been concerned about the 

reports that this could add to the already-growing number of cruelty to and abandonment of horses. 

And I know Ms. Ross addresses this issue in her testimony, but, 

you know, anecdotally, I have been hearing those reports. We are 

having more horses released in east Texas, people telling me, well, 

they hear folks say they paid $300 to $500 for a horse and they 

can’t afford to have a vet put him down. 

And, you know, they can’t afford to keep them going, and the 

horse is one of the most important—most expensive animals to 

keep as a pet if that is what you are going to do. So that has 

caused some concern. 

But under current law, transporting horses for slaughter to foreign countries, such as Mexico or Canada, is legal and regulated 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

9 

The sponsors of the legislation seek to expand Congress’ jurisdiction and affect extra territory by adding this crime to our Federal 

code, which others have raised, causes issues of treaty violations. 

Professor John Baker, of Louisiana State University Law School, 

recently published a report on this trend—revisiting the explosive 

growth of Federal crimes. 

In his paper, Professor Baker writes that over the past 25 years, 

Congress has, on average, created over 500 new crimes per decade. 

His research indicates there are at least 4450 Federal crimes in the 

U.S. Code, 452 of which being created since 2007. 

And one of the issues in so many of these new crimes is the mens 

rea, or the requirement of intent or guilty mind. But one concern 

is that 6598 would criminalize the possession, transport, or sale of 

a horse that is intended to be slaughtered that it may allow people 

to be pursued that did not intend to commit a wrongful act. 

We have heard many stories of these rising rates of horses being 

abandoned because the owners could not afford to keep them. And 

so we will be interested in hearing and gathering more information 

on that. 

It does make it difficult, like in my days as a judge, when you 

have got two sides that paint completely different pictures of getting down to what really is the true situation. 

We previously heard heartrending information about how some 

horse slaughter facilities, most or all, had to have been inhumanely 

killing horses. 

We have seen photographs, films, and, obviously, that is a concern to anybody with a heart or eyes to see. 

But my main concern with 6597, the second bill before the Subcommittee today, is that it may not likely get us the information 

that is being sought, though most of us would really like to have 

that kind of data to know just how significant a problem this is. 

The bill requires the Department of Justice to change existing 

crime databases so that data on all crimes of human—or animal 

cruelty will be collected. 

The department’s crime database is a national repository for fugitive warrants, criminal charges, and trial dispositions. Currently, 

the department merely maintains a database that state and local 

law enforcement officials upload information into. 

The department could create a category for animal cruelty cases, 

and I would expect would do that, but state and local law enforcement officials have no obligation to provide statistics for category 

of cases. 

A problem is that many animal cruelty charges are misdemeanors, and law enforcement officials only provide information 

on felonies. 

Also, many animal cruelty cases are, apparently, investigated by 

civil animal welfare agencies rather than criminal law enforcement 

officials. These civil agencies do not report statistics about the civil 

penalties they impose to the department though it would be helpful 

information. 

Many of these civil agencies also are barely able to meet their 

obligations financially as it is and would not welcome additional 

unfunded mandates. 

10 

I do welcome the witnesses and look forward to hearing their testimony on these issues that remain so very difficult. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Conyers, Chairman of the full Committee? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Chairman Scott and Judge 

Gohmert. 

I am going to ask unanimous consent to have my statement put 

in the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. With no objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

Horse slaughter for human consumption has aptly been called by T. Boone Pickens as ‘‘America’s Dirty Secret.’’ 

In the United States, horses serve recreational and work purposes, but not as a 

food source which explains why there are no horse slaughterhouses in the United 

States. 

Americans generally do not support the slaughter of horses for human consumption. So why do we allow our to horses to be shipped to other countries to face cruel 

and inhumane deaths so that they can become horsemeat? 

I want to put an end, once and for all, to the slaughter of American horses for 

human consumption, and that is why I have introduced two important pieces of legislation. 

H.R. 6598, the ‘‘Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008,’’ will make it illegal 

to slaughter American horses for human consumption. 

And, H.R. 6597, the ‘‘Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008,’’ will require the collection of data on all types of animal cruelty crimes. 

I want to respond to three arguments that proponents of horse slaughter for 

human consumption. 

First, they claim that this practice is somehow humane. I ask, how it can possibly 

be humane to take a horse from a farm or ranch, transport it for more than 24 

hours without food or water to a strange location, force it into a ‘‘killer shoot’’ slippery with blood, stab it repeatedly in the neck, hoist it up by one leg while it is 

still alive, and then slit its throat to let it bleed to death. How is this practice be 

anything but inhumane? 

Second, these proponents claim that this practice simply serves to get rid of ‘‘unwanted’’ horses. The truth is that horse rescue groups often attend these slaughter 

auctions and bid on these so-called ‘‘unwanted’’ horses, only to be out-bid by the 

buyers for the foreign slaughter houses. I’m told that these rescue groups would give 

these horses good homes. 

I’m also told that many people sell their horses at auctions without knowing that 

they are sending their horse to its death. When they find out the truth they are 

devastated. And, if there truly are such ‘‘unwanted’’ horses, isn’t there a better way 

to solve the problem that the cruel system of horse slaughter? 

Third, proponents of horse slaughter for human consumption is a slippery slope. 

If they say that if we ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption today, 

then slaughter of cattle for human consumption will be banned tomorrow. I know 

John Boyd, with the National Black Farmers Association, is supporting my bill. He 

also is a cattle farmer. He is not buying into the ‘‘slippery slope’’ argument. 

It seems to me that we have always treated horses differently from cattle. We 

have never raised horses for the purpose of human consumption. This is a big difference rooted in hundreds of years of tradition and culture. It would seem to stop 

any ‘‘slippery slope.’’ 

I thank Mr. Scott for holding this important hearing and look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses as they talk about ‘‘America’s dirty secret.’’ 

Mr. CONYERS. And then—I only want to tell you that T. Boone 

Pickens calls horse slaughter ‘‘America’s dirty secret.’’ And I 

haven’t talked with him about why he has used this phrase, maybe 

we will find out here today. 

11 

I will yield back my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses with us today to discuss the legislation before us. 

Our first witness is Ms. Liz Ross, Federal policy adviser, Animal 

Welfare Institute. 

Before her work with the Animal Welfare Institute, she worked 

at the Doris Day Animal League for more than a decade. She has 

over two decades of work in animal protection with a specialty in 

equine protection. Since 2001, she has been deeply involved in the 

campaign to end slaughter houses for human consumption. 

She earned her Bachelor of Science degree from Middlesex University in London. 

I think the Chairman of the Committee requested to introduce 

the next witness, a former representative, Mr. Stenholm. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I wanted to introduce Charlie Stenholm because I am one of the few people still around that was here when 

he was here, and I am delighted to see him again. 

He is a senior policy adviser in the Olsson Law Firm. He represented Texas for many years, was senior Member on the Agriculture Committee. 

He was in the Congress for 26 years, and he is the immediate 

past president of the American Association of Equine—wait a 

minute. No, he wasn’t the past president. [Laughter.] 

He has received honorary law degrees from a number of universities. And he was—I remember his bills on economic policy very 

well across the years. 

He enjoyed the great support of our leadership, and I am happy 

to see him again. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And you are not the only one that served with Charlie Stenholm. 

We all very much respected his work with fiscal responsibility, 

helping to guide us through the years when we actually balanced 

the budget and ran into surplus to a large extent to the—through 

the work of Charlie Stenholm and others. 

So thank you, Representative Stenholm, for being with us today. 

It would be great privilege and honor to introduce the next witnesses from the Commonwealth of Virginia, however, the gentleman from Michigan has asked to introduce him, too. 

So I will yield to the gentleman from Michigan to introduce my 

good friend from the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Mr. CONYERS. I didn’t know I was trespassing on your state sovereignty prerogatives. [Laughter.] 

But—nor did I know you had been around that long either. I had 

forgotten that you, too, had served with Charlie Stenholm. 

But John Boyd and I go back a long time. He is not from Michigan, but I have known him longer than the Chairman is the only 

thing I can claim. 

He created—because of the disparity in the way farmers of color 

have been treated in terms of being able to enjoy some of the Federal legislation to support those in the agriculture industry, he 

formed the National Black Farmers Association. 

12 

He himself is a fourth-generation farmer, still has a huge farm 

in Mecklenburg County and has owned horses and has a bachelor 

degree. But he is an activist. That is the thing I like about him. 

He is still on the battlefield fighting for minority farmers all 

these years, and we are happy to have him here. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And he is a friend of many people and 

very much honored in Virginia and throughout the Nation for his 

work with the National Black Farmers Association. So welcome. 

Our next witness is Douglas Corey of Adams, Oregon. He practices equine medicine at Associated Veterinary Clinic, a five-person 

mixed animal practice. 

He is the immediate past president of the American Association 

of Equine Practitioners and has held many leadership positions 

within the organization including chair of the Equine Welfare Committee. 

He is a graduate of Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington and earned his veterinary degree from Colorado State University. 

Dr. Nicholas Dodman is the section head and program director 

of the animal behavior department of clinical sciences at Tufts 

Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine in Massachusetts. 

He specializes in animal behavior and has written for best-selling 

books, two text books, and more than a hundred articles. 

He graduated from Glasgow University, a veterinary school in 

Scotland. He is a member of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, and the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists. 

He is a founding member of the Vets for Equine Welfare and a 

member of the leadership council of the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association. 

Wayne Pacelle is president and CEO of the Humane Society of 

the United States, the Nation’s oldest—excuse me—the Nation’s 

largest animal protection organization. 

He has worked extensively in Congress and state legislatures to 

prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption. 

He has written countless articles on animal protection. He has 

a bachelor’s degree from Yale with a dual major in history and 

studies in the environment. 

Now, each of our witnesses’ written statements will be made part 

of the record, each statement in its entirety. 

We would ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony 

in 5 minutes or less and stay within that time. There is a timing 

device at the table which will start off green, go to yellow when 1 

minute is left, and finally red when their 5 minutes are up. 

We will begin with Ms. Ross. 

TESTIMONY OF LIZ CLANCY ROSS, FEDERAL POLICY ADVISOR, 

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE, ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Ms. ROSS. Good morning. I am Liz Ross. I am Federal policy adviser for the Animal Welfare Institute here in Washington. 

I just want to thank you Chairman Scott, Chairman Conyers, 

and Judge Gohmert for holding this hearing today and the staff 

who I know put so much work into bringing this together. 

13 

I truly appreciate the opportunity to testify in favor of the Conyers-Burton Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act and, Chairman Conyers, we can’t thank you enough for sponsoring the bill. 

Before I start into my testimony, I would like to also just go on 

record that I and my organization support, as well, H.R. 6597, the 

Animal Cruelty Statistics Act. 

I would also like to correct part of my record. Congressman Stenholm corrected me this morning that he is not working—the 

slaughter houses are not a client of his, and that was in my written 

testimony. So I wish to correct that for the record. 

With more than two decades of experience in the animal protection community, I have had the honor of working with legislators 

here in Washington as well as in the British and European parliaments. I have been integrally involved in the effort to end horse 

slaughter via the legislative process. 

I am a founding member of the Home 4 Horse Coalition. I and 

my organization have partnered with the National Black Farmers 

Association to place at-risk horses in good homes. 

And I also serve on the board of directors for Global Federation 

of Animal Sanctuaries. 

I first became aware of horse slaughter back in 2000 when I 

went to the New Holland Sales Stable in Pennsylvania. This is a 

weekly sale where hundreds of horses are sold, many of them going 

to slaughter. 

And the animal cruelty and terror that I witnessed that day and 

everything that I learned about the slaughter trade thereafter was 

so disturbing to me that, upon returning to Washington, I sat down 

with my colleagues, including Chris Hyde of the Animal Welfare 

Institute, and started piecing together a legislative fix to this problem. 

Chris and I had the honor of working with then Representative 

Connie Morella, who introduced the first incarnation of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, the predecessor to the bill before you today. 

Her bill was introduced in the 107th Congress. It was reintroduced in subsequent Congresses gaining great congressional and 

public support. In fact, in the 109th, it passed the House by a landslide vote of 263 to 146, but failed to do so in the Senate. 

Sponsors reintroduced this at the start of the 110th. It currently 

has 206 co-sponsors in the House and 39 in the Senate. But, again, 

it stalled in Committee. 

Attempts to remedy the situation through the appropriations 

process have also hit a brick wall. 

As you noted before, horses are not currently being slaughtered 

in the United States. Under state law, the plants in Texas and Illinois were shut down. 

But our horses are still being slaughtered and butchered for 

human consumption overseas by high-end diners. They are simply 

being transported further to Canada and Mexico where, if you can 

imagine, the process is even more brutal than it is or was here in 

the United States. 

That, combined with the patchwork of state laws that actually 

could have it so that plants could reopen in states with lesser laws 

14 

than those in California, Illinois, and Texas, really cry out for a 

strong Federal statute to shut down this trade. 

You may hear that horse slaughter is a necessary evil without 

which horses will suffer abuse and neglect. The horse slaughter industry exists to turn a profit, and it exists because of the money 

to be made. It actually engenders abuse and neglect. 

Regarding what to do with all of the unwanted horses should we 

shut this trade down again, you noted at the start, Mr. Chairman, 

that 350,000 horses were slaughtered in 1990 and that dropped to 

just over 100,000 last year. There has been no flood of unwanted 

horses running in our fields and streets because—this is again, a 

market-driven industry. 

If slaughter were no longer an option, old and sick horses could 

be euthanized, humanely euthanized by a vet and their bodies rendered or buried, which is what this country does with hundreds of 

thousands of horses every year. 

But most horses going to slaughter are good, healthy, sound 

horses. In fact, the USDA cites that 92 percent of horses going to 

slaughter are in good condition, so they don’t need to be lethally 

disposed of. 

Some have tried to blur the line between slaughter and humane 

euthanasia. There is nothing similar between the two. 

Humane euthanasia is a peaceful process. Slaughter is a brutal 

process. And if there is any doubt in your mind about this, I have 

submitted pictures that are quite graphic along with my testimony 

that shows just how brutal this trade is. 

Mr. Chairman, the ultimate goal for genuine equine advocates 

has always been the passage of a Federal bill, and were it not for 

the people who are opposing this bill while, at the same time decrying the export of horses to Mexico and Canada, we wouldn’t be before you today asking for your help. 

Some have actually questioned whether it makes sense to take 

the judiciary route and to criminalize horse slaughter via Title 18. 

Not only is there a legislative precedent for doing so, but horse 

slaughter, in every respect, is a form of animal cruelty and ought 

to be recognized and treated as such. 

Every 5 minutes, an American horse is slaughtered. We don’t 

raise them for human consumption, we don’t eat them, yet our 

horses continue to be brutally slaughtered. 

These are our pets, our work horses, our race horses, and they 

are suffering an unimagined terror and pain so that someone can 

make a buck. 

There can be no doubt that this is cruelty, and it ought to stop. 

We respectfully request that the Committee and the United States 

Congress quickly pass the Conyers-Burton Prevention of Equine 

Cruelty Act into law. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ross follows:] 

15 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIZ CLANCY ROSS


Ross-1.eps
16 


Ross-2.eps
17 


Ross-3.eps
18 


Ross-4.eps
19 


Ross-5.eps
20 


Ross-6.eps
21 


Ross-7.eps
22 


Ross-8.eps
23 


Ross-9.eps
24 


Ross-10.eps
25 


Ross-11.eps
26 


Ross-12.eps
27 


Ross-13.eps
28 


Ross-14.eps
29 


Ross-15.eps
30 


Ross-16.eps
31 


Ross-17.eps
32 


Ross-18.eps
33 


Ross-19.eps
34 


Ross-20.eps
35 


Ross-21.eps
36 


Ross-22.eps
37 


Ross-23.eps
38 


Ross-24.eps
39 


Ross-25.eps
40 


Ross-26.eps
41 


Ross-27.eps
42 


Ross-28.eps
43 


Ross-29.eps
44 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Representative Stenholm? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES W. STENHOLM, 

FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, TEXAS 

Mr. STENHOLM. Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gohmert, 

Chairman Conyers, it is indeed a pleasure for me to be here today. 

I thank you for your kind remarks of my previous service. 

Now, I want to correct one thing in my record, also, where I say 

that I speak for all animal agriculture. That is a misstatement. 

There is a minority voice in animal agriculture that disagrees 

with my opinion, and I respect that. 

We are a Nation that believes in majority rule. We are all entitled to our opinions, but we are not all entitled to our facts. And 

I respectfully differ with the opinions of those here at this table. 

We can all agree, though, on one thing—99.9 percent of us acknowledge that all animals should be treated humanely from birth 

until death. There is no argument on that one from me or anyone 

else that I purport to represent. 

But the definition of humane treatment is debatable. I have been 

to a horse processing plant. I have witnessed it. I have been to 

beef, pork, poultry, and fish plants. I would not describe it as pleasant, but it is humane and what happens in our society and the animal industry. 

Now, we warned Congress, those of us who have a different opinion, last year, if you pass this legislation and you prohibit the processing of horses, there will be unintended consequences, and there 

are unintended consequences all over the country today. 

As ascertained by our National Association of Counties, National 

Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and Sheriff’s Departments, there is no question that there are unintended consequences. Horse owners are having a difficult time finding a place 

for their unwanted horses. 

It is true that exports of live horses to Mexico have increased 

dramatically. It is true that exports of live horses to Canada have 

increased dramatically. If you pass this legislation, theoretically, 

that will stop—theoretically. 

I do represent the livestock markets of America, some 800 individual small businesses, basically, that have in the past sold 

horses. If this legislation passes, they will no longer be able to sell 

horses because they can not assume the responsibility for a horse 

that comes to their sale for which there is no buyer. 

That is another problem with this legislation. The problem with 

banning the processing of horses is the price floor for unwanted 

horses that the processing industry has provided will be gone. And 

this is what the majority at this table would like to see, but Dr. 

Corey and I have a different opinion. 

Now, you hear a lot about unfunded mandates. Mr. Chairman, 

Members of this Committee, if this legislation were to pass and if 

horse processing for human consumption is absolutely totally 

banned the state, county, and local governments are going to have 

to assume a tremendous amount of additional responsibility because there are no funds being provided. 

45 

There are some excellent horse sanctuary organizations. We have 

one in Texas. Judge Gohmert, you are aware of Black Beauty. They 

do a great job, but they are extremely full. And there are others 

that do a great job. 

But there is not enough money and there is not enough effort to 

take care of all of the unwanted horses. And I can understand, personally, if an individual horse owner does not wish their horse to 

be processed for human consumption. I am for you; don’t sell your 

horse. Do with it as has been suggested that you should all do. 

But why would this Committee superimpose your will on a horse 

owner that does not object to their horse being processed for 

human consumption? 

Why would you want to superimpose your will on an individual 

horse owner that does not object? That would rather have their 

horse consumed in countries that do eat horse meat as long as it 

is done humanely? We don’t. 

Why would you want to superimpose your views on them, of saying what they can and can’t do with their horse? Except, of course, 

to treat your horses humanely 

That is the problem that has always been a concern to me. We 

are a Nation of laws. We are a Nation of private property rights, 

and why would we superimpose our views on a minority or a majority of those who do not object? 

If you would prefer to have your horse euthanized and sent to 

a garbage dump, I am for you. But why would you oppose a horse 

owner that does not object to their horse being consumed by someone that does believe it is okay according to their customs? 

Mr. Chairman, again be careful on unfunded mandates. There is 

an excellent op-ed in the Washington Post this morning from the 

governor of New York about unfunded mandates and the costs that 

are occurring. 

This will be one of the biggest unfunded mandates on many 

small towns and communities that could possibly be passed. 

A final interesting point, we are importing our horse meat back 

in the United States to feed our zoo animals because, as you all 

know, zoo animals prefer horse meat. 

When this meat comes into the United States, it is fit for human 

consumption because, contrary to popular opinion, any horses that 

are processed in Canada or Mexico that go into international trade 

must meet U.S. food safety requirements, of which all of us agree, 

must be met. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stenholm follows:] 

46 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES W. STENHOLM


CWS-1.eps
47 


CWS-2.eps
48 


CWS-3.eps
49 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Boyd? 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN BOYD, JR., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

BLACK FARMERS ASSOCIATION, BASKERVILLE, VA 

Mr. BOYD. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman 

Scott, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Gohmert. 

It is a pleasure to be here this morning, and I appreciate the 

kind words during the introduction. 

I first learned about this issue through an HBO special that I 

saw with Bryant Gumbel that talked about horse slaughter. 

I am a fourth-generation farmer. My father was a farmer. My 

grandfather was a farmer. And where I come from, we don’t eat 

horses. Where I come from, we use horses as a way of living, for 

work. 

When I was a little kid, my first job in the morning was to get 

up and brush my grandfather’s mules and feed them. And I used 

to—I asked him one time, I said, Well, granddaddy, why do I have 

to brush them? And I got a whooping for about an hour because 

that was the way that he made a living for his 15 children, and 

that was the way that he made a living to raise his grandchildren 

and so on and so forth. 

So I beg to differ with Mr. Stenholm, who I have a lot of respect 

for. I have known him a long time, as you have, too, for his work 

on the Agriculture Committee. 

But I agree with T. Boone Pickens. This is America’s ‘‘dirty little 

secret.’’ How can I not know that people were slaughtering horses 

for food consumption? Nobody on my board of directors knew that 

we were slaughtering horses for food consumption. And I think it 

comes to a point where you have to draw a line in the sand. 

I am a farmer. Nobody is trying to take away the rights to raise 

cattle or to raise hogs or to raise chickens. That is not what this 

hearing is about, and our opponents may allude to that. 

This is about a mere right-and-wrong issue, Mr. Chairman; about 

killing horses for consumption. And this is a right-and-wrong issue 

about greed from the people, the middle men, who want to make 

money. 

I don’t know of one farmer in America—Mr. Stenholm may disagree here—that raises horses for slaughter. 

I don’t know any members in my organization that raise horses 

for slaughter. So I agree with that assumption that some farmers 

may allude to that. 

When we sell horses, it is not our objective to have a horse 

slaughtered. We are thinking that this horse is going to go on to 

another farm. 

I would like to address one other point: the unwanted theory. 

There is not all these horses running around and—in the south— 

and people don’t want these horses or anything like that. That is 

not the issue. This is about people who want to make money off 

of horse slaughter. 

So I heard about the issue with HBO and I reached out to the 

Animal Welfare Institute, and we wanted to tie our membership 

and to place some of these horses in our membership around the 

country. 

50 

And we think that is a perfect fit. Most farmers want horses. 

Most farmers have horses on their farms. And we think it is a perfect fit to help place some of these horses on the farms around the 

country. 

So with that said, all the issues about all of these unwanted 

horses, yes, we have times of economic hard times and farmers are 

having difficulties, things of that nature. Feed and hay and all of 

these things play a factor. 

But most of us hold on to our livestock and we treat our livestock 

very well. As you heard to my upbringing, that was one of the 

things that we had to do was make sure that we kept up our livestock and take care of it. 

So a lot of the things that I have heard today, I kind of disagree 

with. We want to end horse slaughter in America, and here again, 

where I come from, I don’t know about you, but we don’t eat 

horses. 

We may eat some beef and some other things, but we don’t eat 

horses. 

So we are here in support of the bill and, Chairman Conyers, we 

appreciate you introducing this legislation, and we are looking forward to working with other Members to get the bill passed. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:] 

51 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN BOYD, JR. 


Boyd-1.eps
52 


Boyd-2.eps
53 


Boyd-3.eps
54 


Boyd-4.eps
55 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Dr. Boyd. 

I want to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 

Delahunt, who has joined us today. 

Dr. Corey? 

TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS G. COREY, DVM, ADAMS, OR 

Mr. COREY. Thank you. Chairman Scott and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you today. 

I am Dr. Douglas Corey. I have practiced equine medicine for 

over 30 years. And I am here today as the immediate past president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners and as 

past chairman of the AAEP’s Equine Welfare Committee. 

The AAEP is a professional association representing nearly 

10,000 equine veterinarians and veterinary students worldwide. 

Our mission is to protect the health and welfare of the horse. 

Unwanted horses in the United States are facing a crisis. From 

New York to California, horses that are considered at risk in the 

equine population are being severely impacted by a struggling 

economy, high grain, high hay prices, high fuel prices, and the closure last year of the three U.S. slaughter plants. 

The result, increased equine cruelty in the form of abuse, neglect, 

and abandonment. 

You have to look no further than the national magazines, your 

own local newspapers, to see evidence of the negative impact on the 

unwanted horse population. 

From Time Magazine, May 2008, an epidemic of abandoned 

horses. From USA Today, March 2008, U.S. shelters saddled with 

unwanted horses. In The Washington Post, January 2008, Loudoun 

County, VA, gets 47 cruelly-treated horses. And from my home 

state of Oregon, the Bend Bulletin headline just last week read: 

Oregon horse owners face tough decisions. 

Headlines aside, those of us who are in the field every day practicing equine veterinary medicine know the harsh realities confronting horses that are unwanted. 

My colleagues are increasingly alarmed by the growing number 

of clients who can no longer afford care for their animals. Fortunately, some of these horses are sold to new owners or are able to 

be placed in a rescue or retirement facility. 

However, more of these horses are left unsold at auctions even 

with rock-bottom prices. Others endure a worse fate of being neglected by their owners or abandoned. 

In the state of Colorado alone, equine cruelty investigations have 

been up 40 percent in 2007. 

While it is difficult to get an accurate count of the total number 

of unwanted horses in the United States, we know from the number of horses that are currently being sent to processing plants in 

North America that that number is in the tens of thousands. 

In 2006, the last year that the U.S. processing plants were open 

for the entire fiscal year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that over 102,000 horses were processed in this country 

alone. The vast majority of those horses were unwanted. 

56 

And while processing plants alone are currently closed in the 

U.S., the only option for many of today’s horses remains processing 

at a facility outside of this country. 

The AAEP advocates the humane care of all horses and believes 

the equine industry and horse owners have a responsibility to provide them humane care throughout the life of a horse. 

Because of a large population of the unwanted horses in the U.S., 

the AAEP believes that processing of unwanted horses is currently 

a necessary end-of-life option and provides a humane alternative to 

allowing the horse to continue a life of discomfort and pain or endure inadequate care or abandonment. 

Our chief reason for opposing this legislation is not because our 

association believes that sending a horse to a processing plant is 

the best option for reducing the unwanted horse population. Our 

opposition exists because this legislation does not address the longterm care and funding that will be necessary to help the tens of 

thousands of horses that would be affected by abandonment. Assuming a bare minimum cost of $5 per day for a horse’s basic 

needs, which does not include veterinary or ferrier expenses, the 

funding needed per horse per year is approximately $1,800. 

Multiply this, for example, by the number of horses that have 

been sent to the Mexican processing facilities thus far in 2008; you 

have 30,000 horses with a cost care per year of $55 million. This 

does not include the large number of horses going to Canada. 

I ask: Can the Federal Government help fund the care of these 

horses? 

Those who support a ban on horse processing often state that 

there are currently a number of equine rescue and retirement facilities to care for all horses that need homes. I strongly dispute 

this claim. 

While there are a number of facilities in the United States providing homes for old and unwanted horses, the capacity of these individual facilities is usually limited to 30 horses or less. 

In closing, this legislation is premature. Horse processing is 

symptomatic of a much larger issue, and that is how to provide the 

humane care for tens of thousands of unwanted horses in the 

United States. 

We believe the equine industry must work together to find a solution to this complex issue. We recognize that there truly is a perfect storm of factors impacting this issue right now. 

One of the AAEP’s priorities is to help these horses by educating 

owners and encouraging responsible horse ownership. That is why 

the Unwanted Horse Coalition was formed in 2005 by the AAEP 

and is currently under the American Horse Council. 

Last month, the AAEP polled the membership on this issue. Seventy-five percent of our members believe that horse processing 

should remain, at this time, an end-of-life decision. 

We, the horse veterinarians of this country, know that passage 

of this bill will put the unwanted horse population at an even 

greater risk. 

I urge you to carefully consider the unintended consequences of 

this legislation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Corey follows:] 

57 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS G. COREY


Corey-1.eps
58 


Corey-2.eps
59 


Corey-3.eps
60 


Corey-4.eps
61 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Dr. Dodman? 

TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS H. DODMAN, DVM, CO-FOUNDER, 

VETERINARIANS FOR EQUINE WELFARE AND HUMANE SOCIETY VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, WESTBOROUGH, 

MA 

Mr. DODMAN. Is this on? Yeah. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify on H.R. 

6598, the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act. 

I have been introduced, but I would just say about my credentials that as a vet who was trained in Scotland. I am a meat inspector, and did my time in the slaughter plants, and I know something about that. 

I am also an anesthesiologist who has anesthetized thousands of 

horses, and I think I am—as a board-certified specialist, I am in 

a position to judge consciousness and unconsciousness. 

I am also currently an animal behaviorist, which I got into 

through studies on equine research. 

I want to thank the sponsors of this legislative effort, Chairman 

Conyers, Representative Burton, Subcommittee Chairman Scott, 

Representatives Nadler, Sutton, and Chabot on this Committee, 

the original co-sponsors of this legislation. 

I would say—I want to testify, really, in my main area of expertise, but just addressing Dr. Corey’s comments just there that I am 

aware of numbers that horses have been killed at one time, you 

know, 15, 20 years ago at 350,000 horses a year were being slaughtered. 

That number at the low, dropped to 42,000 horses a year or 

something in that order, you know, almost a 90 percent drop. There 

was no increase in neglect. There was no increase in abandonment. 

There were no horses running up and down the freeways. 

The people who would support the continuing of slaughter would 

have you believe that there are unwanted horses to the tune of a 

hundred thousand per year. Nobody knows the exact number. They 

probably are a small number. 

If you take that number that we know we can get down to because it is factually true, that is 42,000, and you take off both 

horses that are stolen—and we know that happens because of the 

horse theft figures in California—you take off the number of horses 

that are conned from people from tax shops and advertisements, 

the ones that arrive in slaughter houses with little pink bridles on 

because they belonged to a little girl a few days before who never 

would have agreed to this; the ones that are bought out from under 

riding school people by being overbid by a killer buyer; the horses 

that have been taken from the wild. 

If you pare that 42,000 number down, you come up with a much 

smaller number than the one that all these antagonists put all 

their plans by and frighten people, frighten their memberships into 

talking about increased neglect and welfare. 

What I can tell you is that the AVMA is saying, you know, we 

have got these two terrible situations, and Dr. Corey kind of alluded to it, you know, on the one hand, there might be, but it has 

62 

never been proven to be, and all the sources Dr. Corey quotes are 

just newspaper reports. 

There is no hard evidence that anything bad will happen if you 

ban slaughter. I personally believe it is a predatory and brutal industry that exists solely to generate what I calculate to be about 

a billion dollars between all the hands, and they are fighting like 

crazy to keep it alive, and they are sucking healthy horses out of 

the population just to supply the demand for meat to foreign countries. 

Most of the money from this does not go to the United States, 

it goes abroad. 

The whole process, you know, the alternative—people say, well, 

let us not let them starve in a field; let us kill them humanely by 

slaughter. 

It is not humane. It is not euthanasia. Euthanasia means good 

death. This is not a good death. This is the worst death you could 

possibly imagine. 

These plants are like Auschwitz for horses. From the time they 

are conned off their people, from the time they got onto that trailer 

and they ride a thousand miles in extremes of weather—with people who say, why bother watering them? They are going to die anyway. That is the kind of typical attitude of a driver. They break 

rules. 

I have been involved in the Canadian situation. They take double-decker trailers, which we are not allowed to use in slaughter 

plants. They take them to feed lots and dump them there for a 

while, or they drive them straight. 

I have seen film of trailers, double-deckers arriving that have 

driven from, you know, Colorado to Saskatchewan with these 

horses on board. They are terrified. They are milling around. They 

are brought into facilities that are designed for cattle. The facilities 

are atrocious. The floor is slippery with blood and urine. The 

horses—many of the horses are so panicked; they are terrified. 

Their eyes are rolling in their head. Their feet are spinning around 

in circles. 

They are trying to jump out. The smaller ones can turn around 

because the wrong-sized container. The larger ones get their heads 

stuck through the cattle restraint. The shooter can’t reach around 

to kill them. 

I mean, the noise is awful. I mean, it is supposed to be quiet. You 

are supposed to have high-sides. You are supposed to have non-slip 

floors. You are supposed to have proper arrangements. 

Even the AVMA says that the animal’s head should be properly 

secured. These animals are going back and forth like a shuttle car, 

and the man’s trying to reach with a gun and a stick, and you are 

trying to shoot something like a fish in a barrel that is the size of 

a grapefruit in a horse’s head which is this size. And you have got 

to hit that when it is a moving target. 

According to one sticker in the plant in Canada, 50 percent of the 

horses that are subsequently shackled are actually conscious. 

I have seen horses with their mouths going and their feet running. I estimated 30 percent. He said more like 50 percent. 

They then have their throat cut which takes a while for them to 

bleed out. This is like the old English equivalent of hung, drawn, 

63 

and quartered. And then the next machine cuts their legs off above 

their wrists. 

I wouldn’t be surprised—I don’t have direct evidence, but if some 

of these horses that have their legs cut off aren’t still alive. I mean, 

they are wriggling on the hook like salmon. 

If you look at this, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist, you 

don’t need to be a veterinary behaviorist, you don’t need to be an 

anesthesiologist. This is not humane. 

And any group or organization that supports it really has to reexamine what they are all about. 

And these polls you hear about, the people listening to these, the 

veterinarians, the AVMA, are being fed wrong information and 

they come to the wrong conclusion. 

Neither extreme is right. There are two evils. And the second 

evil, which is slaughter, there has been no negative consequences 

of banning slaughter that have ever been proven. All the people 

can do is refer to newspaper articles and stuff like this. 

There is no hard evidence—350,000 to 42,000—no change in the 

criminal acts of abuse which go on anyway in the background at 

a same consistent rate. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dodman follows:] 

64 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS N. DODMAN


NHD-1.eps
65 


NHD-2.eps
66 


NHD-3.eps
67 


NHD-4.eps
68 


NHD-5.eps
69 


NHD-6.eps
70 


NHD-7.eps
71 


NHD-8.eps
72 


NHD-9.eps
73 


NHD-10.eps
74 


NHD-11.eps
75 


NHD-12.eps
76 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Pacelle? 

TESTIMONY OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you, Chairman Scott, for holding this hearing and for all of your work on animal welfare issues and also to 

you, Chairman Conyers, for your leadership throughout your career 

on animal welfare. 

You know, it was just a short number of years ago when animal 

cruelty issues were not taken seriously. And this Congress has already enacted animal fighting legislation that several of you on 

this Committee have led because you believe that it is wrong and 

inhumane to stage fights for animals just for simple amusement. 

And both bills here today address fundamental issues of animal 

cruelty. And the Humane Society of the United States wholeheartedly supports both because we don’t believe that animals are 

just things or commodities. 

These animals have the same spark of life that we have. They 

want to live just as much as we want to live. 

And it is precisely because we are smart and intelligent as a species that we should be decent and responsible in our dealings with 

other creatures. 

And this is not decency. This is rationalizations that we are hearing from folks who are profiting from the exploitation of these 

horses. 

I will say just a few more words about horses later, but I do want 

to say a quick word about the Animal Cruelty Statistics Act, H.R. 

6597. 

You know, we now treat, as a society, animal cruelty seriously 

because we know it is a vice. It is a moral wrong in and of itself. 

But we also know that animal cruelty and the violence associated 

with it cannot be compartmentalized; that people who are brutal 

and harmful and abusive to animals often have those same ill sentiments directed toward people. 

We see that in 75 percent of cases where there is domestic violence, there is also animal cruelty and vice versa. One day it is the 

animal, another day it is a child, another day it is a spouse. 

We need proper reporting of animal cruelty cases because we see 

that serial killers start with animals and they move on to people. 

And we see all sorts of other violence associated with animals that 

then moves on to people. 

So we commend you for introducing, Chairman Conyers, the Animal Cruelty Statistics Act. And we don’t want this data out of curiosity; we want it because it will help prevent crime and because 

it will stop violence in our communities and in our Nation. 

Regarding the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act, you know, the 

other proponents of this legislation have it exactly right. Horses are 

not raised for food. These animals are opportunistically collected up 

by individuals who want to make a profit. 

And any industry that is involved in exploiting animals is—I 

have seen it through the years. They have these elaborate rationalizations to justify their conduct. 

77 

They don’t want to say they are cruel. Of course, you can’t say 

that. So you have to concoct some defense that somehow by slaughtering these animals, we are doing them a favor; that we are preventing terrible cruelty because people will neglect them and harm 

them. 

Well, should policy in this Nation be driven by people who starve 

animals or exhibit cruelty to them? 

Why are we propping up, as the primary argument of the opponents of this legislation, the fact that some people will starve animals and, therefore, we shouldn’t stop cruelty? 

Those people should be prosecuted under state anti-cruelty statutes. That is what those statutes allow for, and if Mr. Stenholm or 

the other opponents of this legislation have evidence of people within their community starving or neglecting or abandoning horses, 

please give it to us because we will work with law enforcement authorities to stop this cruelty. 

You know, I really think that horses in our society have moved 

more in the category of dogs and cats. You know, we don’t take unwanted dogs and cats and ship them to slaughter houses so they 

can be exported for human consumption. 

And, you know, now that the U.S.-based slaughter houses have 

closed, we are talking about a type of cruelty that is more extreme 

than ever. 

We are talking about transport distances into central Mexico 

that may be 1500 miles, horses crammed onto cattle trucks where 

they cannot even stand; underfed, underwatered animals on longdistance transport. 

And then when they get to Mexico, no standards for humanely 

killing the animals. 

We documented. Our humane society investigators have been at 

the plant in Mexico, and we have it on tape, and we have submitted it to the Committee the horses going into the kill box and 

being stabbed with a short knife or a boning knife. 

You know, the San Antonio News went to a slaughter plant that 

we investigated and showed footage of. This was after our investigation exposed the cruelty. And the reporter described a scene. 

She said the American mare swung her head franticly when the 

door shuts to the kill box trapping her inside. 

A worker jabbed her in the back with a small knife seven, eight, 

nine times. Eyes wild, she lowered her head and raised it as the 

blade punctured her body around the withers again and again. 

At the tenth jab, she fell to the floor of this Mexican slaughter 

house, bloodied and paralyzed but not yet dead. She would lay 

there for a good 2 minutes before being hoisted from a chained rear 

leg so her throat could be slit and she could be bled to death. 

You know, we could do better than this as a society. If we are 

a humane species, we must be humane to the less powerful among 

us. 

These creatures cannot speak for themselves. We have laws in 

this society that say that cruelty to animals is wrong. If those laws 

mean anything, they should be applied to these circumstances 

where we are being barbaric to these creatures. 

Thank you very much, and I would like to ask that a tabulation 

of reports from horse rescuers where they have been competing 

78 

against killer buyers to save these horses be entered into the 

record as well as the letter from the ASPCA. 

[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.] 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:] 

79 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE


WP-1.eps
80 


WP-2.eps
81 


WP-3.eps
82 


WP-4.eps
83 


WP-5.eps
84 


WP-6.eps
85 


WP-7.eps
86 


WP-8.eps
87 


WP-9.eps
88 


WP-10.eps
89 


WP-11.eps
90 


WP-12.eps
91 


WP-13.eps
92 


WP-14.eps
93 


WP-15.eps
94 


WP-16.eps
95 


WP-17.eps
96 


WP-18.eps
97 


WP-19.eps
98 


WP-20.eps
99 


WP-21.eps
100 


WP-22.eps
101 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And I thank all of our witnesses for their 

testimony. They will be called on in due course. 

I would like to recognize, at this time, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, who are with us today. 

We will now have questions, and I will recognize myself for 5 

minutes to begin with Dr. Boyd. 

Dr. Boyd, you have a Ph.D. in economics? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you talk very briefly about the impact of a prohibition on the farming business—on our farming business? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes, I can. 

I think one of the things that I was listening to, Mr. Stenholm, 

when he spoke about property rights. I bought these horses and 

they belong to me. I can kill them or slaughter them or whatever 

it is that I may want to do with the horses. 

And it wasn’t that long ago that they viewed African-Americans 

in the same way in slavery, as property, and I can do what I want 

to do when I want to do it. 

And I think it goes back to the line in the sand that I spoke 

about there, Mr. Chairman, about a mere right and wrong with 

this issue as far as it equates to horse slaughter. 

There is no horses running down the street that people don’t 

want, that you heard some of the panelists talk about. 

We think that we can provide good homes within our organization for horses, and we plan to work with the rescues to place these 

horses around the country. 

So I don’t—and nobody really knows—I have done my own research before I got involved in this issue, Mr. Chairman, nobody 

knows the real numbers. 

I checked with USDA; they really didn’t know the real numbers 

of what they say may be ‘‘unwanted horses.’’ 

So to answer your question, they don’t know what the numbers 

are. But I can tell you that horse slaughter—horse slaughter is 

wrong. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Ross, Mr. Stenholm mentioned costs to localities, 

did you have a response to that? 

Ms. ROSS. Well, thank you for the question. 

What we have seen traditionally is that while localities may certainly be involved in animal cruelty cases or the seizure of horses, 

we have a network of rescues across the country that work in partnership with the authorities. And most usually, they are actually 

taking those horses in and providing for them from their own private funds and from the money of individual donors. 

So, again, I do not believe that there will be a significant economic impact or any economic impact on local municipalities. 

What I would like to say is that with slaughter, there has been 

a very negative economic impact on jurisdictions that were unwilling hosts to the slaughter plants. 

Paula Bacon, the former mayor of Kaufman, Texas, which was 

home to Dallas Crown, fought for years with her city council trying 

to get the slaughter house out of there because it was such a negative economic drain and environmental hazard for that community 

in terms of the money that they had to put into revamping their 

102 

sewer system to deal with the blood and other bi-products of the 

slaughter industry. 

There were people in that town who couldn’t open up their windows or run their air conditioners because the stench was so horrific. There was blood in the streets. The emergency workers and 

the fire workers had to work repeatedly with blood that was left 

in the road. 

And this was a huge economic impact on the community and on 

the city. 

And so, if anything, there is a very negative environmental impact to this trade. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Stenholm, if you have horses slaughtered for human consumption, how do we know that no inappropriate drugs like 

steroids has whatnot were—that the horses were carrying drugs, 

steroids, or whatever? 

Mr. STENHOLM. When we had the three processing plants in the 

United States operating, all of the meat, other than that which 

went to zoo animals, went to Europe for human consumption. 

All of the health restrictions that applied to the Europeans on 

what is in or out of the meat applied to the inspection of those carcasses. 

I have to assume that the food safety veterinarians, the food and 

drug experts and all of the people that were concerned about that 

very question were doing their job. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are there any plants still in operation in the United 

States? 

Mr. STENHOLM. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. Then if they are being used for human consumption, 

they would not be slaughtered in the United States? They would 

be slaughtered somewhere else? 

Mr. STENHOLM. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. How do we know that the horses are, from a health 

perspective, appropriate for slaughter for human consumption? 

Mr. STENHOLM. Those plants that are operating in Canada and 

in Mexico are abiding by the same rules for human consumption 

that Europe imposed upon us and Japan imposed upon us when we 

were processing horses and shipping the meat to them. 

We cannot guarantee 100 percent compliance, no matter how 

many laws we pass. I would guess that there is probably a quarter 

of a million stop signs in Washington, DC. A few of them are being 

run as we speak. 

Laws are going to be broken. And I would say here—this emotion—Mr. Pacelle is excellent at emotion. 

But when you begin to associate me with child killers because of 

the opinion that I have on horse processing, that goes over the top 

as far as I am concerned. And I know you will say you didn’t mean 

it that way, but when you get into making those innuendos, that 

is what makes this such an emotional issue. 

And I want to repeat: No horse owner that does not wish their 

horse to be processed for human consumption should ever have 

their horse processed for human consumption. 

103 

But there are unintended effects now by having no processing 

plants available in the United States. We have cost to the horse industry in excess of $1 billion in economic activity. 

Now, Dr. Boyd, I appreciate what you are saying, but I don’t believe all of your members who own horses would prefer to have 

their horse euthanized at a cost of $200 to $2,000, depending on 

where you are, versus receiving a value for that horse. 

Now, if we absolutely eliminate this, livestock markets will no 

longer be able to sell horses. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. PACELLE. May I respond to that, Chairman Scott? 

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SCOTT. Very briefly, Mr. Pacelle. 

Mr. PACELLE. You know, there are two bills at issue here, and 

the Cruelty Statistics Bill—I made the link between animal cruelty 

and human violence. It is well documented in the sociological literature, and I was really confining my comments there. 

The sort of cruelty that we see in the horse slaughter industry 

is institutionalized cruelty. It is done by the slaughter plants. 

And I think that there is a distinction there, but I do want to 

just say very, very briefly that this issue that Congressman Stenholm mentioned about imposing views—there is a very fundamental question as we deliberate our responsibilities to animals. 

He says, well, if you don’t want to slaughter your horse, then you 

don’t have to, but let us do it. 

Well, to me, that is the same as saying, well, if you don’t want 

to put your dog in a dog fight, don’t do it. But if I want to put my 

dog in a dog fight, then that is acceptable. 

The reason that we have laws is we have standards that are 

based on social norms. And the norm here is that we don’t think 

cruelty is acceptable. 

And just because you have the power to do it, doesn’t mean you 

should do it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Dr. Boyd? 

Mr. BOYD. I just wanted to respond to Mr. Stenholm. I disagree 

that they won’t be able to sell these horses at some of the buying 

stations around the country. That is not accurate. 

We have had horses in this country since probably before we 

were here. And horses were here and nobody was eating horses 

that I am aware of. 

And to the point of Mr. Stenholm, I don’t know of a Black farmer 

that raises horses for food consumption. We just don’t do that, Mr. 

Chairman. 

So that is—the Senator isn’t quite accurate here. 

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, briefly for the record, up until 

1944, we consumed horse meat in the United States. 

In fact, during World War II, it was recommended that we eat 

horse meat so that the beef could go to our troops who were winning World War II. That needs to be in the record. 

We did. We no longer do. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Texas has asked me to defer first to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

104 

Mr. COBLE. I thank both of you. I have a transportation hearing 

going on now. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. 

Good to have you all with us, especially our old buddy from 

Texas who is back on the Hill. Good to see you again, Charlie. 

Mr. Stenholm, I am told that more than 29,000 horses have been 

exported to Mexico this year. And that is, obviously, a large number of horses to place in rescue facilities that are already at capacity. 

Where will these horses go? 

Mr. STENHOLM. Well, with all due respect to Ms. Ross and her 

testimony, there are those that believe that there will be an immediate home for them. And I hope they are right. 

You know, if this legislation is passed, I hope they are right. 

But you only have to look at the plight of the Wild Horse and 

Burro Program right now. We have 40,000 horses that are in pens 

and in various sanctuaries around the country. 

It is becoming a budget problem for the Congress that you are 

going to have to deal with. And that 40,000 is only what we know 

about. 

I agree with the others who have said we don’t know the numbers on this exactly, but we do know what is happening in Illinois. 

I refer to my testimony which, Mr. Chairman, I failed to ask to 

be part of the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. The testimony—the written statements, in their entirety, will be made part of the record. 

Mr. STENHOLM. We do know what is happening in Illinois. We 

do know what is happening in Colorado. And we do know that 

there are unwanted horse problems all over the United States. 

But those 29,000 horses that are going to Mexico is what will effectively stop if this legislation should pass, which is the intent of 

it. 

But I don’t see how you will enforce it because how do you determine the use of your horse once you sell your horse? It then belongs to the next owner. 

And trying to superimpose your will on an owner of a property 

is going to be difficult. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm. 

Ms. Ross, if you will, let me visit with you a minute. 

Are existing sanctuaries sufficient to handle the enormous number of abandoned horses, A? And how much range do they need to 

be humanely treated? 

Ms. ROSS. I would like to start by responding to that question by 

saying that the number of horses going to slaughter is reflective of 

market demand and the capacity of the slaughter houses to process 

those animals. It is not reflective of the number of unwanted 

horses. 

I actually have reports here that we were able to research these 

instances of so-called unwanted horses running at large. And instance after instance, we have got authorities refuting these claims. 

If I can just read a few—— 

The Ohio Division of Forestry said there was no knowledge of 

any horses being turned loose in the state’s forests. 

105 

In Kentucky, we have got the governor saying that these statements about horses running at large were filled with inaccuracies. 

In Utah, we have got the Department of Natural Resources saying we do not have any reports of horses being abandoned on our 

wildlife management areas. 

So again and again and again, every time we check these facts 

about these stories, we are finding that this simply is not true. 

With regard to the infrastructure of sanctuaries, the number of 

sanctuaries has actually risen in this country. We have got approximately 415 now. There is a growing effort to professionalize that 

community. 

Again, I sit on the board of directors of the Global Federation of 

Animal Sanctuaries. We are providing oversight and professional 

assistance to these rescues. Rescues ought to be operating at capacity by their very definition. And that is what they do. 

They are bringing horses in. They are rehabbing them. They are 

re-homing them and bringing more horses in. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, how much range would be needed for you—— 

Ms. ROSS. Well, again, it depends what the management style is. 

But, again, you want to have the ability to turn out a horse in pasture to have exercise and interaction with the other herd members. 

But there is no shortage of ranch and range space in this country 

to put those horses on and to operate several sanctuaries. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

Dr. Boyd, how will H.R. 6598 prevent Mexican or Canadian horse 

processing facility buyers from simply circumventing the law by labeling horses as breeding stock or for other non-slaughter purposes? 

Mr. BOYD. Right. That is a good question. 

Well, I think you get into tricky water when we try to regulate 

what happens in Mexico and some of these other countries. We 

really don’t have jurisdiction to address that. What we should be 

looking at, Congressman, is actually with the bill. 

How can we allow horse slaughter here in the United States 

when there is really not any need for it? 

Liz addressed the issues with the horse sanctuary. We don’t have 

all of the answers. That is number one. 

But number two, we should be looking at other organizations and 

reaching out to other constituencies right here in the United 

States. For instance, the Farm Bureau. 

The Farm Bureau has a far greater constituency than the National Black Farmers Association. Has anybody reached out to 

them to see what they can do to partner and take some of these 

horses, you know, in the future as things arise? 

So I think there is things that we can do right here in the United 

States to deal with the issue. 

And, you know, here again, we just don’t have, you know, jurisdiction over Mexico and what other people are going to be doing to 

break the law. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

106 

You know, John Boyd, if your dad had been as violent with you 

now as he was then, we would have him up for charges on some 

kind of abuse, if so. 

That day has come and almost gone. There is still parents that 

believe that children are spoiled if the rod is not used, and we are 

still working that out as well. Charles Stenholm, if we weren’t in a $1.3 trillion misbegotten 

war, there wouldn’t be any problem. 

I need to continue our discussion about that because I know your 

fiscal approach during your decades here made that a very important matter for you. 

Now, what is really tough for me is I have got to persuade my 

distinguished judicial friend from Texas about the merits of my legislation. He scrutinizes this with great care. 

And we have worked together on several pieces of legislation, 

court security and some other matters that brought us together. 

So what I wonder, with my time, is just ask a few of you how 

I might be able to raise the kinds of considerations that would tend 

to bring Judge Gohmert and I closer together as we explore this 

subject. 

What would you say about that, Mr. Pacelle? 

Mr. PACELLE. You know, I really do think, Chairman Conyers, 

that this is a matter of personal responsibility; that, you know, a 

lot of the Members of this Congress on both sides of the aisle say 

that legislation is no substitute for responsibility. 

And in the care of animals, I think that is especially the case. 

Really, what we are talking about here is there was no defense 

of the commerce of horse slaughter. 

People say it is not vital to the economy. It is not vital to the 

livelihood of the individual. They have basically said if you don’t 

have slaughter, you are going to have neglect or abandonment. 

And I think, really, the answer is for all of us to impress upon 

people is that we are asking decent people to be responsible in the 

care of horses. And if they cannot care for the animal because they 

don’t have enough money because of high hay prices, they have a 

duty, a solemn duty to euthanize the animal or to place the animal 

in a sanctuary; to sell the animal for $200 or $300 or $400 to 

slaughter absolves some of the responsibility in a legal sense but 

not in a moral sense. 

Mr. CONYERS. Uh-huh. 

What do you have to add, Dr. Dodman? 

Mr. DODMAN. Well, it seems to me that there are some people on 

the side of slaughter who adjust—they adjust all the facts to support their case, and it doesn’t matter whether it is what are you 

going to do with the dead bodies or, you know, $2,000 to euthanize 

a horse or the cost of hay or gasoline or any—— 

Every single argument, every single ringer argument that possibly could be used to defeat this motion is being conjured up. And 

most of it, there is little support for. 

You know, I—my—for example, on the matter of disposal of the 

remains, I wrote a letter to the AVMA Journal which they initially 

rejected because they said I hadn’t referenced it. 

So I referenced it and I sent it back in to the Journal with the 

references. And then they said, actually, they would prefer not to 

107 

publish it because they weren’t so sure about my references which 

were about, you know, from agriculture bureaus. 

And then they put their own thing up on their Web site, and it 

is a Q and A which is full of unsubstantiated, undocumented 

mistruths. 

So there are people who would have you believe things, and they 

are twisting the facts. They are not—I would think everything 

should be proven. 

If they say there is an increase in abuse and neglect, they should 

prove it because right now what is going on is abuse and neglect. 

So that is guaranteed. 

The other side of the equation, we don’t even know what it is, 

but we suspect it is much better than they think. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COREY. Can I make a comment? 

Mr. SCOTT. Very briefly. 

Mr. COREY. I mean, we have got a—the only two studies that I 

am aware of, one in Colorado just recently, has indicated and documented a 40 percent increase in abuse and neglect and abandonment. 

We also have an Illinois study, I don’t have that exact percentage, maybe Congressman Stenholm does. But those are documented. 

And we are working to educate equine owners to own responsibly. And that is part of the Unwanted Horse Coalition’s goal; to 

own responsibly. So that is happening. 

And also, as far as the—Ms. Ross’ comments about rescues and 

sanctuaries, there is no data on the exact number of those. However, AAEP, the members, are out there in the field every day 

working, and we see this. 

We get reports from our members that we do see an increased 

number of horses that are abandoned and neglected and abused. 

Just the funds, the economy, and everything, hay prices at $300 

a ton, it is very expensive. So those statistics are real. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Texas, the Ranking Member? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

There are a number of difficult issues, and I agree with the witnesses who said they don’t know anybody that has ever raised 

horses for consumption. I mean, I have grown up around horses my 

whole life, and I don’t know of anybody that has ever raised them 

for consumption, either. 

But on the issue of horses being euthanized, you know, I have 

tried to get to the bottom of what exactly is involved, what would 

be the best way to euthanize a horse; what would be acceptable in 

the eyes of most people with caring hearts and common sense? 

I have had people who said, you know, we certainly don’t need 

the horse slaughter plants because, you know, you can do like my 

daddy always did, if you just let them die of natural causes, and 

if something happens, you shoot them and then you take your 

backhoe and you dig a hole and you bury him. 

Then I have had it reported that actually between local, state, 

and Federal environmental requirements, you really should be getting the hole supervised, make sure you get the right amount of 

108 

lime, see if there is going to be contamination of the ground water, 

and you are subject to heavy fines if you don’t do it right. 

So, you know, when the Federal Government gets involved, we 

have got so many different aspects to be considered. 

But it would be nice to have accurate statistics on these things 

so we could just say, okay, here is the right statistic. And I am very 

much in favor of that. 

The bill says very simply, and—I applaud simplicity, and I appreciate Chairman Conyers’ simplicity in the bill. 

It is basically, you know, just barely more than a page that says 

the data on all crimes of animal cruelty will be collected and made 

publicly available. But as I mentioned in the opening statement, 

you know, they are not required to collect and gather that data on 

a local level. 

I have had sheriffs tell me that—and this is anecdotal, so I don’t 

have hard evidence other than just telling me—man, we have had 

a lot more horses turned loose and, you know, we just deal with 

it. But it has been a problem. 

But then they would throw it, but I don’t need all those folks 

after me, so don’t get me in the middle of this. 

So that gets kind of tough to get accurate information. Is this anecdotal? This is one horse they have dealt with? Is this dozens of 

horses? 

But then I did personally hear from a dear, sweet lady who is 

dedicated to helping underprivileged children. She has got a form 

that she uses for underprivileged children. 

And she contacted me and said if we can’t sell your horses like 

this when they are at the end of their usefulness, I can’t keep accepting horses that people donate. She said the trouble with that 

is these horses really open the kids up. They—— 

And we have got some special-needs schools in my county, in my 

district, where they use horses. And horses have an amazing ability—I am sure most of you all know—to—when kids get around 

them, they all of a sudden become more open and become more easily educated. 

But she said, I can’t afford to take money away from what we 

use for the kids to dispose of the horses. And so she was supporting 

not having laws to close the facilities. 

And so I have wondered, you know, is there a middle ground? Is 

there some way to make sure that these horses are not so 

inhumanely treated? 

I am just curious what would be, in your opinion, the best way 

to euthanize a horse? I am not terribly convinced that we are all 

that humane, oftentimes, dealing with cats and dogs. 

So—yeah, Dr. Dodman? 

Mr. DODMAN. Well, I can address that and, you know, if we had 

the support of the veterinary bodies like the AVMA and the AAEP, 

we could form a committee and come to a consensus. 

But, you know, I have dropped to the ground thousands of horses 

in my life. I can drop them on a dime. They fall to the ground very 

gently and peacefully. 

I could design a regimen in a place where a horse is put behind 

a squeeze board and is injected with certain drugs where he would 

just fall quietly to the ground. 

109 

I did it over and over every day, sometimes several times a day. 

I could take a horse in a field, and I can give him a double cocktail, 

and I could have him sink peacefully to sleep, and then I can administer an intravenous—I mean, I could easily—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. So injection, you believe, is the best way to do 

this? 

Mr. DODMAN. Really, the only way. 

I was involved a little bit with the human euthanasia situation, 

and I don’t think the human situation is particularly kind with the 

triple combination that was recently voted as okay. 

And my testimony there was that, you know, a straight barbiturate injection would be, by far, the best way to euthanize a person. 

And I don’t know why they had that—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, just a follow up on that. 

I have been given information that AAEP and the AVMA both 

advocate the captive bolt method for euthanasia. Is that correct? 

Mr. DODMAN. Well, a little bit, sir. 

See, the thing is what they say is—which is true—is that if you 

take, say, a big practice down in Kentucky or something which was 

recently talked about by Dr. Bramlidge, his neighboring practice— 

under certain circumstances, when a horse is in a situation of 

extremeness, when the blood pressure is extremely low, when the 

drugs are going to travel slowly to where they are supposed to go, 

perhaps, equipment prevailing, if you have a skilled operator and 

a stationary horse, a captive bolt may be a second string way of 

killing a horse. 

But it isn’t humane the way it is done in the euthanasia process 

when the bobbing, moving head by unskilled operators who have, 

obviously, no compassion for animals, shouting, swearing, banging. 

I mean, the horses—— 

Recently, we heard of cattle, which are much quieter animals, 

that 2 percent of cattle are improperly stunned. My estimate was 

30 percent of horses are improperly stunned for that very reason. 

That is a totally different situation from AVMA’s position in the 

field with a skilled operator using a captive bolt in an animal that 

is not appropriate for IV drugs. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. 

Can I have unanimous consent to allow Dr. Corey to add—you 

had something to add, Doctor? 

Mr. COREY. Yes. 

If you don’t mind, I would like to comment on that. 

First of all, veterinarians—equine veterinarians—euthanasia is 

not—is not fun. Nobody likes to—excuse me—euthanize an animal. 

But the AVMA did engage a panel in the year 2000, I believe it 

was or 2001, on a panel on euthanasia, and they came up with 

three forms: The use of barbiturates, the use of captive bolt, and 

gun shot were the three. 

And those guidelines were reinforced, I believe, in 2007. So those 

are up to date, and no matter how you euthanize a horse, not every 

one is going to react the same. 

I don’t care whether you use barbiturates or captive bolt, every 

one will be a little different. 

110 

It would be nice if every one went down—every horse went down 

the same, but not all react the same to euthanasia. And never is 

it a fun thing to do. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

Mr. PACELLE. May I comment briefly on that? All right. 

I think, you know, there is one thing when you are talking about 

the difference between barbiturates and captive bolt and gun shot. 

But the added factor here in terms of the welfare—the animal welfare equation is the long-distance transport. 

If you do this to the animal at the site, whether it is a gun shot, 

captive bolt, or barbiturates, you know you are basically going to, 

you know—the animal may suffer for a couple of minutes more. 

But when you transport the animal a thousand miles or 1500 

miles, you know it is going to be hours or days. And that, I think, 

is the central animal welfare question for us. 

On the handling of the carcasses, I do want to point out that 

there are 34 million cattle slaughtered in America every year. The 

USDA says there are 1 to 2 million dead stock—cattle who die on 

the farms. 

The farmers are already disposing of those bodies which are 

functionally equivalent in terms of the weight. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And, hopefully, most of them are doing it appropriately. 

Mr. PACELLE. Right. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I have got concerns about that. 

Mr. PACELLE. We are already disposing of large bodies of mammals in farming situations. And there are mechanisms for it, and 

there are may be some costs. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

And I have to say, I don’t think I have ever heard anybody say 

they were able to stop a horse on a—or drop a horse on a dime. 

That is a little different. 

But anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very indulging of the time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Are there other questions? 

If not, I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. 

Witnesses, Members may have additional written questions 

which we will forward to you and ask that you answer as promptly 

as you can in order that the answers may be made part of the 

record. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 1 

week for the submission of additional materials. 

And without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(111) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in convening today’s very important hearing on H.R. 6598, the ‘‘Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008’’ and H.R. 

6597, the ‘‘Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008.’’ 

The hearing will examine the paucity of data regarding animal cruelty crimes, 

along with H.R. 6597, which would require the Attorney General to collect data on 

the commission of animal cruelty crimes. This hearing also will examine current 

practices regarding the slaughter of horses for human consumption, and H.R. 6598, 

which would criminalize the sale, purchase, receipt, delivery, possession, transportation, and shipment of horses for the purpose of human consumption. 

Legislation is needed on animal cruelty. The government currently does not collect 

specific data on animal cruelty crimes. Rather, the data, if collected at all, is usually 

included in an ‘‘other crimes’’ section that yields no useful information on the problem. Numerous data bases exist that could collect this information if the databases 

were modified in a manner to require the entry of specific data regarding animal 

cruelty crimes. 

The comprehensive and consistent collection of data on animal cruelty crimes 

would provide heightened awareness to the problem of animal cruelty and could assist in the meaningful allocation of resources to fight the problem of animal cruelty. 

In addition, the collection of data on such crimes could also be helpful in combating 

domestic violence, as social science research indicates an association between animal 

abuse and family violence. Numerous groups fighting domestic violence have supported the collection of animal cruelty data specifically because of this strong connection with family violence. 

A. H.R. 6597, THE ‘‘ANIMAL CRUELTY STATISTICS ACT OF 2008’’ 

I support H.R. 6597. H.R. 6597, the ‘‘Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008’’ also 

requires the collection of data on animal cruelty crimes. It does not mandate the 

creation of a separate offense category or specify the relevant databases. Rather, it 

directs the Attorney General to make appropriate changes to existing crime data 

bases so that data on animal cruelty crimes will be collected and made available 

to the public. 

The approach of allowing the Attorney General to determine the best way to collect the data, as opposed to mandating the creation of a new category, was preferred 

for a number of reasons. First, the Attorney General is the most familiar with crime 

databases and is in the best position to determine how best to collect this information. Second, since its creation in the 1920s, the UCR has added only one new category, and that was for arson. A bill that mandates the creation of a new category 

could create a precedent that could prove cumbersome in the future. Third, the UCR 

and certain other crime databases are voluntary and it was determined that mandating changes to voluntary systems may not be appropriate and may not yield comprehensive results. 

B. H.R. 6598, THE ‘‘PREVENTION OF EQUINE CRUELTY ACT OF 2008’’ 

I support. H.R. 6598, which has bipartisan support, criminalizes the possession, 

shipment, transport, purchase, sale, delivery or receipt of any horse with the intent 

that it be slaughtered for human consumption. The bill also criminalizes the shipment of horse carcasses or flesh for the purpose of human consumption. The law 

provides for both misdemeanor and felony offenses. A first time offender whose conVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:22 Feb 12, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\073108\43830.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43830
112 

duct involves less than five horses or 2000 pounds of horse flesh would be guilty 

of a misdemeanor. A repeat offender, or someone whose crime involves more than 

five horses or 2000 pounds flesh, faces a felony conviction with a statutory maximum sentence of three years prison. 

Because legislation is missing in the area of animal cruelty, I laud these bills as 

a powerful step toward developing legislation that will be useful in this area. I urge 

my colleagues to support these bills 

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

f 

113 

LETTERS FROM THE AMERICAN QUARTER HORSE ASSOCIATION, AND THE ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY


A-1.eps
114 


A-2.eps
115 


A-3.eps
116 


B-1.eps
117 

f 


B-2.eps
118 

LETTER FROM THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (AVMA) 


NNN-1.eps
119 


NNN-2.eps
120 

f 


NNN-3.eps
121 

LETTER FROM CHARLES W. STENHOLM, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN

BODE MATZ PC, ATTORNEYS AT LAW


OOO-1.eps
122 

f 


OOO-2.eps
123 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, DC 


C-1.eps
124 


C-2.eps
125 


C-3.eps
126 


C-4.eps
127 


C-5.eps
128 


C-6.eps
129 


C-7.eps
130 


C-8.eps
131 


D-1.eps
132 


D-2.eps
133 


D-3.eps
134 


D-4.eps
135 


D-5.eps
136 


D-6.eps
137 


D-7.eps
138 


D-8.eps
139 


D-9.eps
140 


D-10.eps
141 


D-11.eps
142 


D-12.eps
143 


D-13.eps
144 


D-14.eps
145 


D-15.eps
146 


D-16.eps
147 


D-17.eps
148 


D-18.eps
149 


D-19.eps
150 


D-20.eps
151 


D-21.eps
152 


D-22.eps
153 


D-23.eps
154 


D-24.eps
155 


D-25.eps
156 


D-26.eps
157 


D-27.eps
158 


D-28.eps
159 


D-29.eps
160 


D-30.eps
161 


D-31.eps
162 


D-32.eps
163 


D-33.eps
164 


D-34.eps
165 


D-35.eps
166 


D-36.eps
167 


D-37.eps
168 


D-38.eps
169 


D-39.eps
170 


D-40.eps
171 


D-41.eps
172 


D-42.eps
173 


D-43.eps
174 


D-44.eps
175 


D-45.eps
176 


D-46.eps
177 


D-47.eps
178 


D-48.eps
179 


D-49.eps
180 


D-50.eps
181 


D-51.eps
182 


D-52.eps
183 


D-53.eps
184 


D-54.eps
185 


D-55.eps
186 


D-56.eps
187 


D-57.eps
188 


D-58.eps
189 


D-59.eps
190 


D-60.eps
191 


D-61.eps
192 


D-62.eps
193 


D-63.eps
194 


D-64.eps
195 


D-65.eps
196 


D-66.eps
197 


D-67.eps
198 


D-68.eps
199 


D-69.eps
200 


D-70.eps
201 


D-71.eps
202 


D-72.eps
203 


D-73.eps
204 


D-74.eps
205 


AAA-1.eps
206 


AAA-2.eps
207 


AAA-3.eps
208 


BBB-1.eps
209 


BBB-2.eps
210 


BBB-3.eps
211 


BBB-4.eps
212 


BBB-5.eps
213 


BBB-6.eps
214 


CCC-1.eps
215 


CCC-2.eps
216 


DDD-1.eps
217 


DDD-2.eps
218 


DDD-3.eps
219 


EEE.eps
220 


FFF-1.eps
221 


FFF-2.eps
222 


GGG.eps
223 


HHH.eps
224 


III-1.eps
225 


III-2.eps
226 


JJJ.eps
227 


KKK-1.eps
228 


KKK-2.eps
229 


LLL.eps
230 


MMM-1.eps
231 

f 


MMM-2.eps
232 

ATTACHMENTS TO PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, DC 


2A-1.eps
233 


2A-2.eps
234 


2A-3.eps
235 


2A-4.eps
236 


2A-5.eps
237 


2A-6.eps
238 


2A-7.eps
239 


2A-8.eps
240 


2A-9.eps
241 


2A-10.eps
242 


2A-11.eps
243 


2A-12.eps
244 


2A-13.eps
245 


2A-14.eps
246 


2A-15.eps
247 


2A-16.eps
248 


2B-1.eps
249 


2B-2.eps
250 


2B-3.eps
251 


2B-4.eps
252 


2B-5.eps
253 


2B-6.eps
254 


2B-7.eps
255 


2B-8.eps
256 


2B-9.eps
257 


2B-10.eps
258 


2B-11.eps
259 


2B-12.eps
260 


2B-13.eps
261 


2B-14.eps
262 


2B-15.eps
263 


2B-16.eps
264 


2B-17.eps
265 


2B-18.eps
266 


2B-19.eps
267 


2C-1.eps
268 


2C-2.eps
269 


2C-3.eps
270 


2C-4.eps
271 


2C-5.eps
272 


2C-6.eps
273 


2C-7.eps
274 


2C-8.eps
275 


2C-9.eps
276 


2C-10.eps
277 


2C-11.eps
278 


2C-12.eps
279 


2C-13.eps
280 


2C-14.eps
281 


2C-15.eps
282 


2C-16.eps
283 


2C-17.eps
284 


2C-18.eps
285 


2C-19.eps
286 


2D-1.eps
287 


2D-2.eps
288 


2D-3.eps
289 


2D-4.eps
290 


2D-5.eps
291 


2D-6.eps
292 


2D-7.eps
293 


2D-8.eps
294 


2D-9.eps
295 


2D-10.eps
296 


2D-11.eps
297 


2D-12.eps
298 


2D-13.eps
299 


2D-14.eps
300 


2D-15.eps
301 


2D-16.eps
302 


2D-17.eps
303 


2D-18.eps
304 


2D-19.eps
305 


2D-20.eps
306 


2D-21.eps
307 


2D-22.eps
308 


2D-23.eps
309 


2D-24.eps
310 


2D-25.eps
311 


2D-26.eps
312 


2D-27.eps
313 


2D-28.eps
314 


2D-29.eps
315 


2D-30.eps
316 


2D-31.eps
317 


2D-32.eps
318 


2E-1.eps
319 


2E-2.eps
320 


2E-3.eps
321 


2E-4.eps
322 


2E-5.eps
323 


2E-6.eps
324 


2E-7.eps
325 


2E-8.eps
326 


2F-1.eps
327 


2F-2.eps
328 


2F-3.eps
329 


2F-4.eps
330 


2F-5.eps
331 


2F-6.eps
332 


2F-7.eps
333 


2F-8.eps
334 


2F-9.eps
335 


2F-10.eps
336 


2F-11.eps
337 


2F-12.eps
338 


2F-13.eps
339 


2F-14.eps
340 


2F-15.eps
341 


2F-16.eps
342 


2F-17.eps
343 


2F-18.eps
344 


2F-19.eps
345 


2G-1.eps
346 


2G-2.eps
347 


2G-3.eps
348 


2G-4.eps
349 


2G-5.eps
350 


2G-6.eps
351 


2G-7.eps
352 


2H-1.eps
353 


2H-2.eps
354 


2H-3.eps
355 


2H-4.eps
356 


2H-5.eps
357 


2H-6.eps
358 


2H-7.eps
359 


2H-8.eps
360 


2H-9.eps
361 


2H-10.eps
362 


2H-11.eps
363 


2H-12.eps
364 


2H-13.eps
365 


2I.eps
366 


2J-1.eps
367 


2J-2.eps
368 


2J-3.eps
369 


2K.eps
370 


2L-1.eps
371 


2L-2.eps
372 


2L-3.eps
373 


2L-4.eps
374 


2L-5.eps
375 


2M-1.eps
376 


2M-2.eps
377 


2M-3.eps
378 


2M-4.eps
379 


2M-5.eps
380 


2M-6.eps
381 


2N-1.eps
382 


2N-2.eps
383 


2N-3.eps
384 


2N-4.eps
385 


2N-5.eps
386 


2O-1.eps
387 


2O-2.eps
388 


2O-3.eps
389 


2O-4.eps
390 


2O-5.eps
391 


2O-6.eps
392 


2O-7.eps
393 


2O-8.eps
394 


2O-9.eps
395 


2O-10.eps
396 


2P-1.eps
397 

Æ 


2P-2.eps