Why exempt horses?

Following is an email sent to me in response to my recent appeal to the Brazos Progressives listserve asking folks to call and ask Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) to support Senate Bill 1915, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (the sender's name and email address is omitted as I haven't sought permission to publicly identify that person):

I hate to sound insensitive but I dont understand why should horses be exempt? I think it is absurd to do so. If you are a carnivore, does it matter what type of animal flesh you eat? Horses are not slaughtered any less humanly than cows, pigs, or chickens. In Europe, horse meat is not considered any different than any other meat and is found in every grocery store and butcher and was is the menu in the cafeteria at my office. It is actually quite a bit cheaper than beef and does not taste that much different. A more reasonable effort would be to have sustainable agriculture, reduce the dependency on petrochemicals in fertilizers and artificial growth hormones.

We may be uncivilized enough to eat horses but we allow all people to marry whom ever they please.

My return email response:

For me, it's simple: horses are our companion animals, just like the dogs and cats I have in my home. I don't think we should allow slaughter of American dogs and cats for human consumption, here or abroad, and I feel the same about horses.

It's no different than the culture of India; those folks don't slaughter their cattle for human consumption (or any other consumption I'm aware of).

There's also the concern of humane horse transportation and slaughter and the fact that a majority of the horses stolen in this country wind up at one of the three U.S. horse slaughtering plants. But those are secondary issues to me.

Response to my response:

I do not feel legislation is appropriate here. That is an emotional response rather than a logical one. Legislation should be a last case scenario in the majority of cases as currently much too much, of our lives are controlled by the Government and there should be less controls not more.

There is no law in India that says you cannot slaughter cattle and beef is slaughtered and consumed in India. (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/09/16/stories/13160467.htm .) But that is also religion rather than culture. Therefore a comparable argument would be that pork should not be eaten in the US since many people of the Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu faiths do not eat pork.

Can you say that any slaughter is humane? I think this also must be an all or nothing issue. Of course I think the current "humane" euthanasia by the ASPCA is also a waste of resources. If you are just going to kill an animal due to over supply, why shouldn't it be consumed? Of course that is a discussion that won't make me popular in most circles and anyone that knows me well would also say I am being hypocritical due to the amount of resources I use on my cat, who has no problem eating horse.

And, lastly, my response to the sender's response to my response (apologies for the tortured phrasing):

Well, I'm not aware of any rule that invalidates emotionally-driven legislation.

I stand corrected about beef consumption in India; obviously cattle aren't as sacred there as I thought.

I can't say, and neither can you, that anything is 100%, let alone certify that any slaughter is humane. It's all a matter of degrees--and everyone has his or her own level (degree) of tolerance above or below which they act or don't act upon. With respect to humane slaughter, that's saying that there are more humane ways of slaughtering animals than the sloppy and cruel methods the slaughterers would be doing left to their own scruples. There's a level of that humaneness I'm comfortable with and a definite level that I'm not.

Your argument, however, doesn't dissuade me from doing what I can to outlaw the slaughter of horses in this country for human consumption. I suspect you'd feel the same about this--emotionally speaking that is--if cat slaughter houses were to open in this country to feed the waiting mouths in Korea: http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=RSPCA/Campaigns/Dogandcatmeat.

Since sending my final response, I've mucked around a bit more on the web with respect to human consumption of dog- and cat-meat. According to the Korean Food and Drugs Administration (as reported by Animal People Online in June 2001):

"According to figures released by the Korean Food and Drugs Administration," World Society for the Protection of Animals regional representative Trevor Wheeler told ANIMAL PEOPLE in 1999, "there are 6,464 restaurants throughout Korea which have dog meat dishes on their menus. They sell 25 tons of the meat per day, and 8,428 tons per year. Another 93,600 tons of dog meat is used each year to produce 'medicinal tonics.'"

According to the same report, cats are slaughtered in Korea for reasons in addition to eating them: "cat-boiling to make a health tonic used by older women continues to increase" and that the "Moran market (just outside of Seoul and "the biggest dog- and cat-meat marketplace in South Korea") data suggests the number of cats killed per year may be circa 100,000."

I've blogged about the slaughtering of horses in this country before (here and here), and as I said above, my principle objection to it is because horses have historically served as one of our American companion animals. However, exempting animals from slaughter for human consumption on the ground they are "companion" animals gets tricky real quick. (But, heck, what in life is black and white anyway?) For example, what about rabbits? They've been raised for the purpose of humans eating their flesh, right? But many folks would vigorously defend them today as just as much a companion animal as a dog or cat. Couldn't that also be said today, too, for pidgeons? Turtles? Llamas? Pigs? If so, why shouldn't their slaughter for human consumption be legally prohibited, too, on the basis that they're a companion animal?

Then there's the matter of definitions. As voting outcomes are determined by the vote counter, and not the voters, classification of animals as companion animals or livestock depends upon who's doing the defining. It seems in most cases that horses, like ponies, donkies, and mules, are defined as livestock, but there isn't, as best as I can tell, any taxonomic-type source that serves as the overarching authority on this.

I guess it boils down to horses having a special status in our country's history and culture. As must be obvious, I don't have the training or background to discuss this issue on anything but a basic level, but I do know what I feel: I feel American horses are entitled to a special-case companion animal status and that this status should serve to prevent their slaughter in this country for human consumption. I agree with the emailer above that this is an emotional response, but I still don't think that fact invalidates the legal restriction I'm advocating for.