Reproduction of letter from Texas Congressman Charles Stenholm to Michelle Landers

November 17, 2003

Dear Ms. Landers,

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding H.R. 857, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. I value your opinion and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

I expect we are both well aware that there are thousands of horses in the US that are unwanted because they are no longer useful, and in some cases are even dangerous. I certainly understand a desire to protect these animals from inhumane treatment. That's something that I have been doing for decades with my support for full enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, among other things. However, I believe that a simple ban on the processing of horses for food will not solve the problem of unwanted horses nor encourage their humane treatment. Along with a a number of prominent breed associations,
like the American Quarter Horse Association, I believe that HR 857 might actually increase or prolong the suffering of many unfortunate horses. Consequently, I do not expect that I will support HR 857 should it move out of the Livestock and Horticulture Subcommittee, where it is currently being considered.

I hope you will let me take this opportunity to further explain my understanding of the somewhat complicated nuances this bill.  I realize that several presumably well-intentioned organizations are actively pushing this legislation. However, I think they fail to understand the full implications of what they are trying to do.

First, HR 857 will not prevent a single horse from being killed and disposed of, if that is what the owner wishes. HR 857 will merely ensure that horses are no longer killed for human consumption in USDA inspected facilities under the strict guidelines of the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Slaughter Act. If a person wants to dispose of an unwanted horse they will still be able to kill the horse and send it to rendering or dispose of it on-farm.  Nothing about that reality will change under HR 857. Only, were HR 857 enacted, there would no longer be the possibility of the animal at least being killed in a venue where a USDA inspector is present to ensure that it is put down humanely. given that the cost to have a horse put down by a private veterinarian is around $100-$150, I think it unlikely that many unwanted horses will receive that kind of humane euthanasia, especially given the reduced value of animals at rendering relative to slaughter plants. And since animals are not
accepted alive at rendering plants, I will leave it to your imagination to suppose how and under what circumstances their lives
may then be ended, should HR 857 be enacted into law.

Second, even if I set aside my animal welfare concerns, I do not believe it is the federal government's place to say that it should be illegal to consume horse meat, even if I find it personally repulsive. Nor do I think that the federal government should be involved in deciding which livestock can be eaten and which cannot. It is the government's job to ensure that all livestock are treated humanely, regardless of breed or class, but not to decide which ones folks can or cannot eat.

Finally, it is important to note that the percentage of horses that actually are slaughtered for human consumption has been decreasing rapidly over the past years, without any federal intervention. The number of horses processed in the US or exported to Canada for processing, decreased from 263,000 in 1992 to 62,000 in 2001, and should be well below 50,000 this year. Given recent legal actions in Texas, this decline is only likely to accelerate in the coming year or two. As such, it seems that this issue may well be resolved to your satisfaction fairly soon through more appropriate state, local and economic influences.

Again, I do want to thank you for contacting me with your concern and views on HR 857. It is out of respect to you, as one of my constituents, that I have tried to respond in a frank and forthright manner, knowing taht my response may not be what you might wish to hear. Regardless, I truly appreciate knowing your views. It is the free exchange of thoughts and ideas between us that allows me to most appropriately represent you. Please do also be assured that I will continue to think about your comments if this issue ever moves forward out of Subcommittee.

With warm regards, I remain Sincerely yours,

Charlie

Charles W. Stenholm
Member of Congress