Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Inside US Trade
Horse Slaughter Bill Dead Until Next Year, Amid Precedent Fears
_______________________________________________
Date: October 3, 2008
A bill aimed at stopping the slaughter of horses for human consumption under the threat of criminal penalties failed to come to the House floor this session after passing the Judiciary Committee on Sept. 23.
Opponents charge the bill could set a “dangerous precedent” that could lead to new U.S. animal cruelty laws regulating the slaughter of cattle, swine and other livestock for reasons other than health and safety akin to regulations advanced in the European Union. On Sept. 18, the European Commission approved sweeping new rules on animal welfare in European slaughterhouses that requires additional staff training and new monitoring of slaughterhouse stunning equipment.
Opponents fear that the bill, H.R. 6598 or the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008, could come up again in the next Congress. They include the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association and the National Pork Producers Council along with the American Farm Bureau Federation.
The bill’s supporters dispute the notion that passing the bill would open the door to animal welfare restrictions on livestock commonly produced for food, such as cows or pigs. Comparing horses to cows or pigs is like “comparing apples to oranges” since horses in this country are not bred for food, said Nancy Perry, vice president of government affairs for the Humane Society of the United States.
She said while there is overwhelming support within Congress for a bill banning horse slaughter, there is no similar support for a ban on the slaughter of cattle or swine.
Following the Judiciary markup, the bill was referred to the House Agriculture Committee for further consideration due to a jurisdictional claim, one source said. The Agriculture Committee’s extension expired on Oct. 2, but the House faced a crowded calendar as it was preparing to adjourn.
The bill as passed by the House Judiciary Committee would impose criminal penalties of up to three years in jail and fines on anyone who “possesses, ships, transports, purchases, sells, delivers, or receives” a horse with the intent to be slaughtered for human consumption.
While the last U.S. horse slaughter facility closed in early 2007, the bill’s proponents believe the legislation will end what they call an “inhumane” practice of shipping horses to slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada. Sources estimated that anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 horses this year will be sent from the U.S. to slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada.
The Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment to H.R. 6598 by House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), an opponent of the bill. It required the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to consult with the U.S. Attorney General over enforcement of the legislation.
If passed into law, the horse slaughter ban will be enforced by the U.S. Attorney General’s office and Goodlatte said the Attorney General has “no experience in this area.” Additional amendments introduced by Goodlatte aimed at weakening the bill were rejected.
The Judiciary Committee had jurisdiction over the bill because it contained criminal penalties rather than civil penalties, according to Perry of the Humane Society. Another source claimed that Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), a co-sponsor of H.R. 6598, spearheaded the bill through the committee.
During the Sept. 23 hearing, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), another H.R. 6598 opponent, questioned why the committee was taking up the legislation. “I think it’s quite unusual to have a horse bill before the Judicial Committee,” King said.
The bill is similar to H.R. 503, the Horse Slaughter Prohibition bill, which the House passed by a 263-146 vote in September 2006. It was never taken up by the Senate. That bill, which was introduced by Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) on Feb. 1, 2005 and referred to the Agriculture Committee, contained civil penalties.
H.R. 503 amended the Horse Protection Act and called for the ban of “the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption.” The authority to enforce the legislation would have fallen to the Secretary of Agriculture.
By contrast, H.R. 6598 would amend 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code. H.R. 503 also included an authorization of $5 million for enforcement of the ban. H.R. 6598 includes no authorized funding for enforcement.
Many of the bill’s opponents believe that passage of the horse slaughter bill could lead to a dramatic overhaul of the federal Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act for pigs and cattle.
“To call that [horse slaughter] practice into question or say that this process is something not humane would call into question how all species are [slaughtered],”said a policy specialist with the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). “We think that it’s a very slippery slope.”
But opponents of the bill also insist that their main opposition to the bill revolves around the fact that if horse owners are no longer allowed to export horses to be euthanized, tens of thousands of old or lame horses will be abandoned.
However, Perry called that opposition to the horse slaughter bill “a very tired argument” that associates the restrictions on the slaughter of horses who are pets with that of livestock commercially raised for food production.
In a fact sheet in support of H.R. 6598, the Humane Society of the United States claims the bill “addresses the inherent cruelty in allowing the slaughter of our horses for human consumption. The inhumane transport over unbearably long distances, coupled with the horrifying methods of killing and difficulty of stunning horses prior to slaughter, are unacceptable to the American people and must be halted.”
Similarly, in a Sept. 18 letter, Cathy Liss, president of the Animal Welfare Institute, wrote that horse slaughter “is not humane euthanasia; it is a brutal process during which horses suffer terribly from start to finish.”
The AFBF source said industry fears that this argument that horses are treated cruelly or inhumanely could lead to arguments that cattle, swine or other livestock are being treated cruelly or inhumanely, since horses were slaughtered in this country under similar conditions that other livestock are slaughtered.
The specialist pointed out that when horses were slaughtered in this country, it was done under the supervision of a federal veterinarian employed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The same supervision is required of pig and cattle slaughter, she said.
In a statement, Alex Waldrop, president and chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Association, said his association is not supporting the bill “because it’s an unfunded mandate that puts seized horses in the hand of the Attorney General and not in the hands of those who know how to care for horses.”
Goodlatte said H.R. 6598 could punish horse owners unfairly.
“There are farmers and ranchers and other horse owners who will in good faith ship their horses to other countries and if that horse eventually winds up going to slaughter they would be a part of prosecution that they certainly never intended to have,” Goodlatte said in last month’s markup.
Horse Slaughter Bill Dead Until Next Year, Amid Precedent Fears
_______________________________________________
Date: October 3, 2008
A bill aimed at stopping the slaughter of horses for human consumption under the threat of criminal penalties failed to come to the House floor this session after passing the Judiciary Committee on Sept. 23.
Opponents charge the bill could set a “dangerous precedent” that could lead to new U.S. animal cruelty laws regulating the slaughter of cattle, swine and other livestock for reasons other than health and safety akin to regulations advanced in the European Union. On Sept. 18, the European Commission approved sweeping new rules on animal welfare in European slaughterhouses that requires additional staff training and new monitoring of slaughterhouse stunning equipment.
Opponents fear that the bill, H.R. 6598 or the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008, could come up again in the next Congress. They include the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association and the National Pork Producers Council along with the American Farm Bureau Federation.
The bill’s supporters dispute the notion that passing the bill would open the door to animal welfare restrictions on livestock commonly produced for food, such as cows or pigs. Comparing horses to cows or pigs is like “comparing apples to oranges” since horses in this country are not bred for food, said Nancy Perry, vice president of government affairs for the Humane Society of the United States.
She said while there is overwhelming support within Congress for a bill banning horse slaughter, there is no similar support for a ban on the slaughter of cattle or swine.
Following the Judiciary markup, the bill was referred to the House Agriculture Committee for further consideration due to a jurisdictional claim, one source said. The Agriculture Committee’s extension expired on Oct. 2, but the House faced a crowded calendar as it was preparing to adjourn.
The bill as passed by the House Judiciary Committee would impose criminal penalties of up to three years in jail and fines on anyone who “possesses, ships, transports, purchases, sells, delivers, or receives” a horse with the intent to be slaughtered for human consumption.
While the last U.S. horse slaughter facility closed in early 2007, the bill’s proponents believe the legislation will end what they call an “inhumane” practice of shipping horses to slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada. Sources estimated that anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 horses this year will be sent from the U.S. to slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada.
The Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment to H.R. 6598 by House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), an opponent of the bill. It required the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to consult with the U.S. Attorney General over enforcement of the legislation.
If passed into law, the horse slaughter ban will be enforced by the U.S. Attorney General’s office and Goodlatte said the Attorney General has “no experience in this area.” Additional amendments introduced by Goodlatte aimed at weakening the bill were rejected.
The Judiciary Committee had jurisdiction over the bill because it contained criminal penalties rather than civil penalties, according to Perry of the Humane Society. Another source claimed that Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), a co-sponsor of H.R. 6598, spearheaded the bill through the committee.
During the Sept. 23 hearing, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), another H.R. 6598 opponent, questioned why the committee was taking up the legislation. “I think it’s quite unusual to have a horse bill before the Judicial Committee,” King said.
The bill is similar to H.R. 503, the Horse Slaughter Prohibition bill, which the House passed by a 263-146 vote in September 2006. It was never taken up by the Senate. That bill, which was introduced by Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) on Feb. 1, 2005 and referred to the Agriculture Committee, contained civil penalties.
H.R. 503 amended the Horse Protection Act and called for the ban of “the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption.” The authority to enforce the legislation would have fallen to the Secretary of Agriculture.
By contrast, H.R. 6598 would amend 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code. H.R. 503 also included an authorization of $5 million for enforcement of the ban. H.R. 6598 includes no authorized funding for enforcement.
Many of the bill’s opponents believe that passage of the horse slaughter bill could lead to a dramatic overhaul of the federal Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act for pigs and cattle.
“To call that [horse slaughter] practice into question or say that this process is something not humane would call into question how all species are [slaughtered],”said a policy specialist with the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). “We think that it’s a very slippery slope.”
But opponents of the bill also insist that their main opposition to the bill revolves around the fact that if horse owners are no longer allowed to export horses to be euthanized, tens of thousands of old or lame horses will be abandoned.
However, Perry called that opposition to the horse slaughter bill “a very tired argument” that associates the restrictions on the slaughter of horses who are pets with that of livestock commercially raised for food production.
In a fact sheet in support of H.R. 6598, the Humane Society of the United States claims the bill “addresses the inherent cruelty in allowing the slaughter of our horses for human consumption. The inhumane transport over unbearably long distances, coupled with the horrifying methods of killing and difficulty of stunning horses prior to slaughter, are unacceptable to the American people and must be halted.”
Similarly, in a Sept. 18 letter, Cathy Liss, president of the Animal Welfare Institute, wrote that horse slaughter “is not humane euthanasia; it is a brutal process during which horses suffer terribly from start to finish.”
The AFBF source said industry fears that this argument that horses are treated cruelly or inhumanely could lead to arguments that cattle, swine or other livestock are being treated cruelly or inhumanely, since horses were slaughtered in this country under similar conditions that other livestock are slaughtered.
The specialist pointed out that when horses were slaughtered in this country, it was done under the supervision of a federal veterinarian employed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The same supervision is required of pig and cattle slaughter, she said.
In a statement, Alex Waldrop, president and chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Association, said his association is not supporting the bill “because it’s an unfunded mandate that puts seized horses in the hand
Goodlatte said H.R. 6598 could punish horse owners unfairly.
“There are farmers and ranchers and other horse owners who will in good faith ship their horses to other countries and if that horse eventually winds up going to slaughter they would be a part of prosecution that they certainly never intended to have,” Goodlatte said in last month’s markup.