Hi Mary and both Pats,
Here is my dissertation; feel free to post it as you see fit.
Let's keep up the good fight! 
Jean M

Myths versus Logic in considering HR857, The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act  

Horse owners and breeders argue in favor of HR 857 because of their interest in humane and considerate treatment of all horses.  

Myth: Slaughter is the only method to dispose of unwanted horses.
Logic: Successful horse rescue organizations have successfully handled the unwanted horses for years.  

The Dallas Crown slaughterhouse advertises it will accepts horses for slaughter which do not meet their meat-grade standards for a $50 disposal fee.  If a horse owner is starving his horses for lack of funds, will he have $50 each to pay for slaughter?  

Before the current public debate about horse slaughter, law enforcement agencies in cooperation with  established animal rescue groups proved themselves quite capable of rescuing horses from situations where they were abused or neglected.  The occasional news item about a successful rescue demonstrates that this system works adequately when needed.  

When horse slaughter becomes illegal, there will be no need for expansion of the horse rescue network.

HR 857 provides for the internment of seized horses up to 60 days with an established horse rescue organization.  However, no trucking companies will accept the risk of losing payment for their illegal equine cargo in addition to having their expensive 18-wheelers impounded for months as evidence pending a trial!  

Myth: Americans should not try to control dietary preferences in foreign countries.

Logic: Dietary preferences in foreign countries neither obligate nor legitimize American exports to that market.  

While we may have an economic interest in supplying a foreign market we consider legitimate, the existence of a demand in no way obligates America to supply the desired product.  If a foreign country developed a taste for human babies, would we be bound to send them children from our orphanages?  What about heroin? I hear a lot of people in foreign countries pay high prices for it.  

Responsible people in other countries also find the inhumane transport of slaughter horses morally objectionable.  I include a summary of an article "Konwoje smierci" ("Convoys of death"), published in the Wisconsin Polish-language newspaper Gwiazda Polarna May 17, 2003 .  The article, whose author is not mentioned, is reprinted from the another American-Polish newspaper from the Chicago area Czas Na Biznes.  It is possible that the Chicago newspaper bears the author's name.  

Horses from Eastern Europe ( Russia , Lithuania , Estonia and Ukraine ) are transported in trucks to France , for the meat market.  The horses are transported in terrible conditions, packed tightly into trucks, for non-stop trips sometimes up to 48 hours long.  A horse brought to France brings ten times its purchase price, but some horses do not even survive the journey.

A Polish couple named Jankowiak is trying to save some of them.  They established a place of refuge "Oasis TARA", where the re-purchased  horses live.  In spite of the fact that the rescued horses have good living conditions, some of them live only a few months, due to the deprivations suffered during transport.   

Myth: Without the killer-buyers, horse prices will collapse.

Logic: Killer-buyers contributed less than 0.25% to horse sales in 2002.  Their absence at auctions would have absolutely no effect on national market prices for horses.  

42,312 horses were slaughtered at USDA-inspected plants In 2002.
Most of these horses were bought at auctions by contract buyers. 
What if the killer-buyers had not offered the winning bid?  

Assume a killer-buyer is bidding against Buyer A, who bids $450.
If the killer-buyer decides not to offer more, the horse is sold to Buyer A for his bid of $450.  That is the way an auction works.  
So how would the absence of killer-buyers affect the national horse price?
In concrete terms, the theoretical loss is only 1 cent out of $5.
These 42000 horses would have sold at $100 less per head (see #1 below).
This theoretical loss would amount to $100*42000 = $4,200,000.
$4.2 Million is only  0.21% of the projected $2 Billion in horse sales in 2002(see #2 below).
The absence of killer-buyers would have absolutely no effect on national market prices for horses.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1

[ The professional killer-buyer spends the whole day at the auction; time is his ally.
He bids strategically in small increments and probably never exceeds $500; he BUYS FOR PROFIT, knowing in advance the slaughterhouse will pay him about 40 cents per pound, i.e. $400 for 1000 lbs. ]  

#2

SOURCE DOCUMENT equi1999.TXT:  

Released March 2, 1999 , by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board , U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Inventory of equine in the United States as of January 1, 1999 totaled 5.32 million head, up 1.3 percent from the 5.25 million head on January 1, 1998. Equine includes horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys.  Equine sold totaled 558,000 head in 1998, an increase of 3.3 percent from the 540,000 head sold in 1997. Value of Sales from equine sold in 1998 was $1.75 billion, up 6.9 percent from of $1.64 billion in 1997.  

[Author's note: Projecting the 1997-98 rate of increase in sales volume and price forward, we we find over 600,000 horses selling for around $3500 each for total revenues of $2 Billion in 2002. Those who argue that slaughter buyers contributed 42000*$3500=$147 Million to horse revenues overlook auction rules; the theoretical loss would have been limited to the difference between the final bid and the previous bid. As outlined above, this difference amounted to less than 0.25% of the $2 Billion.]  

Responsible for content: Jean McLane, New Braunfels , TX   (830) 660-0117  mclane@wireweb.net