American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) Board Votes to Support the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act
On the recommendation of its Racing Committee, the American Association of Equine Practitioners board of directors voted this week to support the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (H.R.1754/S.4547). The legislation’s chief goal is to create uniform safety and medication standards in all U.S. racing jurisdictions. “Uniformity of rules is essential to protecting the safety of the racehorse and ensuring the integrity of the sport,” said AAEP President Dr. David Frisbie.
However, for the horse to be best served, the AAEP will continue to advocate for additional veterinary representation on the HISA board and committees beyond the single position currently designated for each. “In the previous version of the bill, the AAEP was a strong proponent for the governance structure to include individuals with the requisite expertise needed to capably address anti-doping and therapeutic medication regulation,” said Dr. Jeff Berk, AAEP immediate past president and Racing Committee chair. “The composition of the Authority Nominating Committee gives us confidence that the needed scientific expertise for these important positions will be considered, but we believe the breadth of knowledge needed to successfully protect equine athletes requires additional individuals.”
Position on Lasix:
Regarding the race-day administration of furosemide (Lasix), the AAEP’s position continues as one of support, as the medication remains the most efficacious treatment for exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH) in the horse. However, in 2019, a coalition of 20 racetracks, including hosts of Triple Crown races, along with numerous racing jurisdictions committed to restricting administration of furosemide on race day, independent of federal legislation .
“We are pleased to see in the revised legislation that the Authority will convene an advisory panel comprised of horse racing anti-doping and medication control experts to study race-day furosemide, including its impact on equine health and the integrity of competition,” added Dr. Scott Hay, AAEP president-elect and a racetrack practitioner. “Investigating effective management strategies for EIPH which do not require race-day medication administration has been a central goal of the AAEP’s Prescription for Racing Reform developed five years ago.”
A synopsis of a presentation to veterinarians during The American Mustang session at the 2014 American Association of Equine Practitioners Convention, held Dec. 6-10 in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Feral tribal horses walk the streets within the Navajo Nation. They’re outside restaurants. In people’s yards. There are just too many horses, and the Navajo government is working to change that. It started in 2013 with community roundups and a veterinary management program.
Scott Bender, DVM, works as tribal veterinarian with the Navajo Nation Veterinary Program and is a USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service consulting veterinarian. At the 2014 American Association of Equine Practitioners Convention, held Dec. 6-10 in Salt Lake City, Utah, Bender shared the challenges faced when managing feral horses within the Navajo Nation and results of tribal equine population management efforts.
The Navajo Nation is located in the southwestern United States, with territory spanning Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico. The reservation comprises 18 million acres and, said Bender, an estimated 75,000 to 96,000 horses.
The tribe permits 12,000 livestock owners, with the majority of permit holders having one to five privately owned horses.
Under tribal law, all unbranded horses within the Navajo Nation are tribal property, Bender explained. That leaves the tribe with a lot of horses.
The Navajo traditionally view horses as sport, working, and food animals. “The horse is sacred to the Navajo, but that doesn't mean we don't eat them," Bender explained. The Navajo believe horsemeat has medicinal, healing properties and is useful as a “winter” meat, he said, explaining that “horsemeat, by tradition, can only be eaten in the winter between October and April—end of thunder and not after ‘first thunder.’”
Initially and into the early 20th Century, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs managed tribal livestock, but management has slowly transitioned to the sovereign nation government, Bender said. This happened partly because of U.S. government-approved reduction of livestock in the 1930s and the euthanasia and burial of more than 500 horses by federal authorizes following a dourine outbreak at the Canyon de Chelly National Monument, which is located in northeastern Arizona within the Navajo Nation boundaries. “This ‘waste of resources’ has left a negative indelible mark on the attitude of Navajo livestock owners toward the U.S. government,” Bender said.
To the Navajo, unused horsemeat is a wasted resource that the creator gave the people, he clarified.
With this in mind, surplus Navajo horses had historically been sold off-reservation to slaughter as a way to manage populations and produce income. When U.S. equine slaughter plants closed in 2007, the tribal horses lost 95% of their value and the surplus feral horses were left to breed without human controls, Bender said. “The current (tribal) horse issue is a direct result of the elimination of an outlet for surplus horses,” he added.
As herds grew, damage to rangelands increased, as did horse-caused human injuries. “Horses in right-of-ways caused car wrecks, human injuries, and even deaths,” Bender said. These issues led tribal communities to request that the Navajo National Department of Agriculture start its equine population management program in 2013, which involved roundups and veterinary services, including free:
While the initial fertility vaccination was effective, Bender described owner booster rates of horses as “dismal,” despite the program’s outreach and communications efforts promoting boosters. The program’s leadership is now investigating anti-gonadotropin-releasing hormone vaccine (know more commonly as anti-GnRH or GonaCon) use as a longer-activing and single-dose alternative to PZP.
In 2013 the Navajo Nation local communities, with the help of the Navajo Nation Departments of Agriculture and Resource Enforcement, rounded up more than 8,900 horses. Permitted owners claimed approximately 250 horses, with the tribe selling the rest with the requirement that they could not be returned to the Navajo Nation.
The veterinary program’s goal was to castrate 1,000 male horses and vaccinate 1,500 mares against fertility by the end of 2014. To date, more than 700 horses have been castrated or vaccinated with PZP for fertility control. Bender said members of communities where horse removals took place have reported improved forage conditions in spite of the continuing 14 years of drought in the southwestern United States and Navajo Nation.
Source: The Horse
Source: Beef Daily
Horses are free for the asking. Sometimes they're even free without asking as unwanted horses turn up in sale barn pens, tied to someone's corral or are simply turned loose in the dead of night. Prices for horses that are trading have dropped across the spectrum because there's no longer a price floor. There's still a killer market, close to the borders. But shipping puts more miles on the horses.
Sometimes they're even free without asking as unwanted horses turn up in sale barn pens, tied to someone's corral or are simply turned loose in the dead of night. Prices for horses that are trading have dropped across the spectrum because there's no longer a price floor.
There's still a killer market, close to the borders. But shipping puts more miles on the horses and they end up at facilities in Canada and Mexico where the U.S. has no animal welfare jurisdiction.
That's what animal rights activists and others presumably concerned about the welfare of unwanted horses effectively accomplished by banning horse slaughter in this country.
“This is emotion vs. logic, and we never win those kinds of arguments,” laments Lance Baker, West Texas A&M University associate professor of animal science in the Equine Industry Program. “Most people who own horses don't treat them like livestock; they treat them more like a cross between livestock and a pet… They simply believe horsemeat should never be eaten.”
Keep in mind, this ban was accomplished through the use of state laws. In Texas, where two of the remaining three horse-slaughter plants operated until May, it was a 1949 state law originally placed on the books to prevent packers from mixing horsemeat with beef. In Illinois, it was a new state law banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption. As of Oct. 1, the courts there apparently drove the final nail into that facility's hopes by refusing its appeal.
Pending bills in Congress could prove more worrisome to other livestock producers, though.
“We're concerned this could set a precedent that would prohibit processing of other livestock species, since the decision is based on emotion rather than on science, animal welfare and animal health,” says Josh Winegarner, Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA) director of government relations.
TCFA and other state associations were heavily involved in the debate over the horse-slaughter facilities in Texas. Because the 1949 law mentioned earlier was already on the books, Winegarner explains there was little opportunity to convince slaughter-ban supporters of the unintended consequences.
In basic terms, a pending bill in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 503) seeks to amend the Horse Protection Act to “…prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.” A sister bill (S. 311) is pending in the Senate.
According to Brent Gattis, senior policy advisor for Olsson, Frank and Weeda, P.C. in Washington, D.C., the language in these bills is mild compared to what supporters of the slaughter ban have tried to attach via appropriations language. One version would have prohibited federal veterinary inspection of horses for all purposes. No more international trading of race horses, no more competing at international equestrian events. No more circuses with horses.
“It was unclear whether you'd even be able to move horses across state lines,” says Gattis, whose firm has been representing the processing facilities.
A letter to the chairman of the Agricultural Appropriations Committee, from 18 livestock organizations — including the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP), National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) and Professional Cowboys Rodeo Association — explained the language would also prohibit inspection of live horses for disease, as well as inspections at quarantine facilities. The General Counsel for USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service also weighed in against the language.
Without the federal bills, life is already tougher for horses. According to a report issued by the Animal Welfare Council (AWC) last year, there are about 9.2 million horses in the U.S. (2005). Of those — previous to the ban on horse slaughter — AWC estimated about 1% (90,000 head) were marketed annually to processing for human consumption.Looking through a different glass, the total cost of caring for unwanted horses, based upon 2005 statistics, is $220 million/year, according to AWC. Persechino also shares AAEP statistics that estimate basic sustenance horse care at $1,900/horse/year — feed, water and shelter but no veterinary or farrier expense.
None of the expenses account for the lost processing revenue, either.
“Those in favor of banning horse slaughter say those 90,000 head can be absorbed into current horse-rescue facilities,” Baker says. “First, no federal regulations exist to govern the care of horses in those facilities. Second, there aren't enough rescue facilities to take care of 90,000 unwanted horses this year, let alone another 80,000-90,000 the year after that, and so on.”
“There are very few, and by that I mean less than a handful of, publicly funded, equine facilities/shelters like those in every city for dogs and cats,” Persechino explains. “If the government is going to limit processing as an option, they should first provide economic alternatives for owners. Dog and cat shelters enjoy widespread public support and funding. Shouldn't horses have the same option?”
In a paper entitled “The Unintended Consequences of a Ban on the Humane Slaughter of Horses in the U.S.,” AWC explains, “For all disposal methods, except for onsite burial, transportation of the horse carcass to the disposal site creates issues pertaining to cost, disease transmission and potential exposure to the public of deceased animals. The increasing cost and difficulty of carcass disposal is emerging as a significant issue for horse owners with limited financial capacity to care for an unwanted horse.”
When renderers are available, they charge $75-$250. There's incineration, but it's not necessarily readily available, and it costs $600-$2,000, AWC says. Newer technologies like composting and bio-degradation also come at a cost and have unique environmental or access challenges. Even burial — euthanization by a veterinarian and disposal at a certified landfill still willing to accept horse carcasses — will cost $300-$500.
What's more, Baker points to the sad but well-known cases of dogs and cats abandoned by their owners out in the country, rather than taken to the local animal shelter, many of which charge nothing. He wonders what would possess such people to pay for humane euthanasia and disposal of an unwanted horse. “Without the option and economic incentive to process horses, the number of animal-neglect cases may double or triple in local communities,” AWC concludes.
That was the basis of a joint response from NCBA and 190 other organizations to the pending federal bills: “…As many as 90,000 horses annually will need care, food and shelter. S. 311, and legislation in the House, H.R. 503, both fail to address the problems of costs for care and the unintended mistreatment of these animals in non-regulated rescue facilities.”
Persechino says, “I think you also can expect taxpayers to foot the bill for horses that become part of the ‘equine welfare’ system, just as we are currently subsidizing wild mustangs and burros.”
Still time to fight
Ironically, Winegarner points out it may become easier to get the public and their elected officials to recognize the problem with unwanted horses in light of the ban on horse slaughter as more horses are abandoned and neglected.
“Continue to educate your representatives in Congress about any impacts you see from the ban on horse slaughter, and about the unintended consequences it could have on other livestock species,” advises Winegarner.
“This is a good example of what animal-rights groups such as the Humane Society of the United States are willing to do in their effort to prohibit anyone from owning livestock for any reason,” Gattis says. “It's also a good example of what can happen unless the agricultural industry bands together.”
MONTH / yEAR