| The Image and Perceptions of the Horse Industry: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare By Julie Kimball USDF Convention December 4, 2003 Ms. Kimball has more than 18 years of experience of experience in the equine industry developing programs and promotional plans for organizations like the American Quarter Horse Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, and the American Paint Horse Association. Animal rights are not the same thing as animal welfare. One of the main tactics used by animal rights activists is division within the horse industry. Animal rights is basically the philosophical view that humans have no rights to use animals at all, while animal welfare believes that humans have the responsibility to heal, and care for animals, and when necessary, humanely euthanize animals within their care. Animal rights is big business. The Humane Society of the United States (not the same as our local humane societies: more later) has a net worth of 85 billion dollars, and PETA has a net worth of 5 billion dollars. If animal rights extremists succeed, they will end ALL USE of animals, which means that we will no longer be able to ride, own or use orses or other animals in any ways—they would even extend their cause to seeing eye dogs. Their means are violent. The head of PETA admitted in a CNN interview that they condoned terrorist acts like arson, car bombs and vandalism “provided no humans are injured”!!! Their organization and others are under investigation by the FBI. For more information, check out www.activistcash.com These animal rights organizations have been expert in their ability to manipulate media including those within the horse industry, most recently regarding PMU farms and the debate regarding whether horses were companion animals vs. livestock. They are also striking fear in the hearts of organizers of our competitive sports, and in the 1996 Atlanta resulted in 82 vets being present on course to meet the needs of the 62 horses competing, while only 3 physicians were present to care for the spectators and human athletes—the USOC wanted to make certain that there would be no fodder for the animal rights activists at the 1996 Olympic Games. What is PETA’s position on our breeding industry? Simple: don’t breed them, don’t own them, don’t buy them. Those that own horses are selfish and frivolous. Note that the Humane Society of the United States does not own, operate or exert control over a single animal shelter. Funds donated to the HSUS DO NOT go to local shelters. While the HSUS does work for animal welfare in general, make no mistake—they have a radical arm that is every bit the threat to the horse industry that PETA is—and if you do not believe it, you should request a copy of their mission statement. The HSUS is a separate entity from the Humane Society of America, which does support local shelters. If you do choose to donate to a national organization, read the fine print before you donate and check out the mission statement—make sure you support their goals/ideals. So, what of the “companion” vs. “livestock” debate, and the “owner” vs. “guardian” campaign that was initiated in Boulder, Colorado? These movements legislate away the rights of owners to make decisions regarding their own animals, and further endanger our industry from a tax standpoint. Think about it: your dog, a companion animal, is not a tax write-off. Your horse can be. Additionally, an entirely new can of liability worms is opened if a horse is in “guardianship,” and an owner could be sued on a horse’s behalf for failing to fulfill their duties as guardian if the horse did not receive all the care another interested party felt was their due. Do we really want to go there? As to the whole PMU issue: yes, there have been problems as to what to do with the PMU foals, but at surprise inspections by uninvolved third parties, contrary to animal rights activists’ claims, care of the PMU mares has been found to be adequate to good. Furthermore, in some northern states, some breeders have come up with a novel way to save money and boarding costs on their best broodmares: they are sending them to the PMU lines after breeding and bringing them home again for foaling out and rebreeding. Regarding horse slaughter, this is an emotional issue for most horse owners, but the Europeans cannot understand our angst regarding this issue. To them it is a fact of life, and their larger concern is the humane treatment of horses prior to slaughter. Practical information regarding horse slaughter is as follows: In 1998, horse slaughter was outlawed in California. There have been no convictions. In 2001, the USDA published regulations regarding transportation to slaughter. Many within the horse industry have serious questions regarding disposal if horse slaughter for human consumption is outlawed. The #1 reason for slaughter is human abuse and neglect, and many industry analysts believe that a ban would serve to increase abuse and neglect because unwanted horses that would otherwise be slaughtered would continue to live because their owners will not be willing to pay the cost of euthanasia and disposal. The animal rights movement has successfully used this issue to divide the horse industry, and made it a highly charged emotional one. There is a federal bill currently before congress, HR 857, that is quite alarming in its wording. It would allow confiscation of all horses in a person’s possession if a horse is intended for slaughter at the time they are cited by the law enforcement officer. Furthermore, if any horse is ill or injured beyond recovery in the opinion of the person enforcing this law (note: this is a law officer and NOT a veterinarian), that person may immediately euthanize the animal (even though they may have no training in how to properly do so). The owner of the confiscated animals has 60 d to post bonds for the confiscated horses, and if unable to do so, the government may either adopt out the horses or euthanize them. The AAEP, AQHA, and other organizations are working to defeat this law because it takes control away from horse owners, and does not adequately safeguard the health, safety and welfare of our horses. The intentions of the authors, though well meaning, will not be carried out with wording such as this and there are far too many ways for things to go desperately wrong. How can we, as horse owners, protect our horses and our rights as owners?
We also need to be proactive regarding animal rights:
Return to USDF Convention Table of Contents. |
|