advertisement

Missouri horse industry reacts to repeal of slaughter ban

Thursday, December 1, 2011 | 6:04 p.m. CST; updated 10:46 p.m. CST, Thursday, December 1, 2011

COLUMBIA — Uncertainty remains about the future of horse slaughter in Missouri even after the lifting of a ban on killing horses for human consumption.

The U.S. Congress on Nov. 18 repealed a 2006 ban on funding for federal inspections of the slaughter of horses, meaning that horse slaughterhouses can once again operate legally in the U.S.

Before they were forced to close in 2007, horse processing plants in the U.S. sent most of their meat to Europe and Asia, particularly France and Japan.

Several locations in Missouri are being evaluated as the site of future slaughter facilities, according to Mindy Patterson, vice president of the Missouri Equine Council and development director of the United Horsemen's Front, a group that supports horse slaughter.

Though Patterson wouldn’t name the locations, she said Missouri will likely see the opening of a horse slaughter facility in six months to a year.

But Nat Messer, MU professor of equine medicine and surgery, said he doesn't believe it's likely a horse processing plant would open in Missouri in the next year.

He pointed out that the congressional repeal is only for one year, and if anti-slaughter activists launch a strong political campaign, Congress could reinstate the ban next year.

"I don’t think anyone in their right mind would build a slaughter plant with that kind of uncertainty," he said. 

The life span of the repeal "depends on how politically active people will be in affecting congressional members’ votes," Messer said.  "They appear to respond to the most squeaky wheel."

Patterson acknowledged that the prospective processing plants cannot appear instantly.

“We can’t just snap our fingers and have a plant in operation,” she said, but she believes there is a strong need for one.

"My phone has been ringing off the hook from people around the country wanting to have a place to send their old, infirm and unwanted horses,” she said.

Messer said the MU Equine Clinic has seen more abandoned and neglected horses and a greater number of requests for euthanasia since the ban was passed in 2006.

"There are so many horses affected adversely," he said, "it would be in the best interest of those horses," for Congress to keep the ban repealed long enough for processing plants to open up in the U.S.

The Government Accountability Office report that helped initiate Congress’s repeal of the ban noted that instead of stopping the slaughter of horses, the ban had resulted in nearly the same number of horses being sent to Mexico and Canada for slaughter.

Patterson said while the slaughter facilities in Canada are all regulated by the European Union, there are several unregulated facilities in Mexico, and horses must undergo 30 to 40 hour trips in trailers to reach these distant facilities.

"Not having the option to process horses in the U.S. has made it worse for those unwanted horses," Messer said.

Patterson said the repeal of the ban has hurt the horse industry in Missouri and across the nation.

"Before the ban, the horse industry was a $102 billion industry," she said, referencing an economic study done by Deloitte Consulting LLP for the American Horse Council Foundation in 2005.

The GAO report found that the slaughter ban had a "significant and negative impact on horse prices," across the nation and that there was a "statistically significant reduction in average sale price across all price categories after the cessation of slaughter in 2007."

They estimated that the price drop had been most dramatic for lower-end horses, where prices dropped by more than 20 percent.

Rob Bartels, a horse breeder from Fulton, runs Tuscarora Stables, where he raises and trains appaloosa horses for the show circuit. He welcomed the repeal and said he believes a Missouri slaughter facility could help bring horse prices back up.

Bartels has worked with horses for 20 years and said the 2006 ban has produced the lowest horse prices he’s ever seen. Without a base price for old and sick horses, he said, the bottom has dropped out of the market.

Last year, for the first time since he’s been raising appaloosas, he decided not to breed any of his mares.

Messer said that since the ban was passed in 2006, the overall number of mares being bred in the U.S. dropped 20 to 30 percent, an effort by those in the horse industry to decrease the number of unwanted horses.

“I don’t personally send my horses to the killer market,” Bartels said. “I’m out to show and raise them. But without the killer market, my market is worthless.”

Patterson, who owns quarter horses in Wildwood, said the re-introduction of horse processing in Missouri would not only revive the horse market but would have a trickle-down effect to industries such as feed manufacturers and tack and livestock stores.

"Horses are an important part of agriculture and the U.S. economy," she said. "The vitality and health of horses is dependent on having processing back in the U.S."


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

charles hodapp December 23, 2011 | 8:07 p.m.

Horse slaughter in MO needs to be revitalized. The bottomless slump in horse prices has brought more harm to horses than the ability to slaughter them and put them to an after purpose use. People are neglecting horses in unforseen ways that should be noted by the do gooders that brought about the ban in the first place. Turning horses lose on public lands to starve, neglecting horses in need of medical attention because it is cost prohibitive, forcing slaughter horses to make long uncaring trips to slaughter in Mexico under unregulated conditions.

Why can't people see that they have made a mistake and leave the repeal alone? Let the USDA regulate the horse slaughter and send the meat overseas to the starving people the do gooders are supposedly so worried about as ambasadors of goodwill. People won't have to turn horses lose to starve or neglect them because they can't compete with rising costs and upkeep vs the decline in worth of their investment.

I see so much adversity proposed by the animal rights activists, yet I've yet top see them donate a dime to feed all the horses whos lives they are so compelled to save.

(Report Comment)
Corey Parks December 23, 2011 | 8:16 p.m.

Agreed

(Report Comment)
frank christian December 23, 2011 | 9:31 p.m.

Some years ago, what island was it that had a deer population preserved by CONSERVATION (not environmental) agencies, by planned "thinning" of the herd with firearms?

Environmentalist, animal rights (a difference?) intervention stopped the "slaughter" and visitation some few years later showed that the animals had reproduced to the extent that vegetation had been devoured so that the entire deer population had starved to death.

My hope, is that the care of our environment can soon be returned to the care of our CONSERVATIONISTS (where it always was) and out of the hands of the political, progressive, animal rights, Environmentalists.

(Report Comment)
Corey Parks December 23, 2011 | 10:16 p.m.

Not sure what island that was but I did have a buddy who through a deer study program in Georgia used to travel and thin herds of different animals in TX and most southern state and even spend a year on St Croix trapping deer with nets and traps (no guns allowed). Said it was one of the hardest things hes done.

(Report Comment)
Kim Eichelberger January 17, 2012 | 12:54 a.m.

The GAO report also admits that it cannot determine the difference between the downturn in the horse market due to the slaughter ban OR the economic downturn, which happened simultaneously. The report discusses the fact that most horses (particularly low end horses) are owned by those making $75,000 per year or less, and these are people most adversely affected by economic woes in a poor economic climate. When faced with job loss, foreclosures, etc., coupled with the higher prices of feed, hay, food (for humans), fuel and energy costs, the horses are the ones that invariably suffer (those of us that own horses understand the high costs of having equines, and should easily understand this). Furthermore, it makes no real economic sense statistically that the slaughter ban should have effected the horse market considering that roughly the SAME NUMBER OF HORSES GO TO SLAUGHTER EACH YEAR. It would only make sense IF we suddenly had a huge drop in that number, but that still doesn't hold statistical water considering it is less than 1% of the total horse population regardless of which total number you look at (6 million to 10 million). Furthermore, the argument assumes that people would choose the slaughter option anyway, which still exists through kill buyers at auctions. The GAO report makes 2 recommendations: A) Repeal the slaughter ban, or B) Do not let our horses go to slaughter for human consumption across borders. EACH camp thinks they've "won", but to not discuss the full scope of the report is misleading and irresponsible and doesn't help the plight of the nation's horses. I would encourage EVERYONE invested in this issue to download and read the entire report - ALL 68 pages - with an analytical and critical eye and an understanding of economics, including all of the extra causal factors regarding this issue(ie, overbreeding, public health issues, that horses thefts go up exponentially within a geographical distance from slaughter houses, etc, etc). I HAVE DONE THAT. After examining the data the evidence just does not support the reopenning of slaughter plants.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements