Only a slaughter ban puts end to slaughter

Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist, took advantage of Kentucky Derby internet eyeballs to pen a piece of clickbait commentary that began as praise for the fact that the victorious Justify did not race as a 2-year-old and ended with an appeal to restore a well-regulated horse slaughter industry to these United States. The column was illustrated with – what else? – a gorgeous shot of Justify winning the Derby.

In between, there were references to the horrors of Mexican and Canadian slaughterhouses, a cherry-picked scattering of stats, and indirect quotes from a woman identified as a horse trainer from Camden, S.C., who predicted “… horses that ran their best last Saturday will be off to the slaughterhouse in the next two to three years.”

Parker also deployed that most repugnant of terms – “humane slaughter” – to describe the bestcase option for U.S. horses discarded to the killers. Okay, let’s shout this again from the rooftops: There is no such thing as humane slaughter. The slaughter of animals for human consumption can never be humane.

“That’s been proposed before, the idea of bringing slaughter back to the U.S. so we can regulate it here,” said Chris Heyde, whose Blue Marble Strategy consultants lobby for a variety of animal and environmental protection issues. “My answer to that is, ‘Have you ever seen the U.S. slaughter system?’ I have, and believe me it is anything but humane.”

Parker retweeted her column Wednesday morning with the teaser: “Love the Derby? Love the slaughter.” Catchy. “Each year, 130,000 horses, some 10,000 of them thoroughbreds, are transported to Mexico or Canada under abhorrent circumstances,” Parker wrote.

A big number, yes. Also, wrong number. According to official import statistics for 2017, shared by the Animals’ Angels advocacy group, there were 52,555 horses exported from the U.S. for slaughter to Mexico and 12,273 exported from the U.S. to Canada. Furthermore, those numbers have been steadily decreasing over the six years presented in the import statistics.

Some of the reduction has been the result of the European Union crackdown on potentially dangerous levels of routine medications found in the meat of U.S. horses, both pleasure and performance. Heightened awareness of slaughterhouse abuses and a growing movement of retraining and adoption also have had an effect.

When Parker’s error was pointed out by a reader on Twitter (the 130,000 came from an incorrect 2015 PETA article, no less), the writer promised to “update in a follow up column.”

While she’s at it, Parker might take another crack at another mistake – her assertion that “… the United States has outlawed horse slaughter…”

No, the United States has not outlawed horse slaughter.

There currently are no horse slaughterhouses operating in the U.S. because of pressure from animal welfare interests on the Congressional budget process to withhold funding for inspections of horse slaughterhouses, therefore rendering them unable to process and sell horse meat. Such an end run would not be necessary if the United States actually did outlaw horse slaughter, along with the sale and transport of horses for slaughter. But Congress has yet to take such a step.

They could, if the SAFE Act could move through Congressional committees for a floor vote. Parker made no reference to the SAFE Act, which is strange, writing as she was from Camden, since the Senate version of the proposed legislation is titled the John Rainey Memorial Safeguard American Food Exports Act.

Rainey was a pillar of the horsey Camden community who was, among other things, a passionate advocate of Thoroughbred welfare and virulently opposed to equine slaughter. He served as treasurer of the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation, and as chairman in 2011. He was a staunch supporter of the Second Chances program that pairs retired racehorses and prison inmates with mutually rehabilitative benefits. Rainey also was executive producer of the documentary “Homestretch,” highlighting programs like Second Chances that provide alternatives to the knee-jerk slaughter option of so-called unwanted horses.

Parker’s conclusion goes something like this: Because so many Thoroughbreds will be damaged through racing, renewed slaughter in a U.S. program is the only viable alternative to what is otherwise a horrific ending in Mexico or Canada.

This is nothing but a bitter shrug of surrender, based on outdated data and a lack of imagination. Every poll ever taken on the issue finds the American public overwhelmingly against the practice. Horses are bred and raised in this culture as performance and companion animals, and their end use as a food source goes contrary to the deal we make with them at birth.

Rainey died in 2015, frustrated by the thwarted efforts to secure anti-slaughter legislation. As an industry, Thoroughbred racing has yet to speak with one, loud voice in support of a slaughter ban once and for all. Perhaps it is time, but such consensus is hard when there is no organized pushback against those who see slaughter as a viable alternative.

Yes, they are economic commodities – from Justify to Old Dobbin’ – but that does not mean their lives should end with a $300 horse meat tag around their necks.