To avoid redundancy, I will just say "see above post" : )

I can accept cultural differences and values (toobadsoosad for me if I can't) put upon animals for consumption as long as there is some semblence of respect/appreciation included.
I am sure Indian/Hindu folks view our selective and deliberate consumption of beef rather blasphemic where we think nothing of it and can even be defensive about it.

As a kid, I accepted that beef, pork, chicken veal, lamb and all fish industrially farmed for consumption was just a part of life. The 4-H kids had PETS. Totally different animal in my child-colored eyes. Legit for another culture to feel differently. I like that I can adopt what I prefer : )

Horses are generally still federally classed as chattel or livestock in a lawsuit, real estate contract or tax form (USA). When the folks in authority view the horse as property, the value of that horse's life is minimized. This makes it easy to maintain lame penalties and weak defenses on their behalf. The irony is in the fact that almost always, when a horse's benefit is brought to the public courtfront, the first power statement made is on how The Horse bore and built, won and worked this land into what it is. Our history was made from the back of a horse. So...Let's kill the heritage?
wrong premise, wrong method, wrong population.

I agree with you, Ash: slaughter the already dead, MANAGE the living.

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents here, I am no expert on the subject but I do realize that we have a crisis on our hands with the general over population of unwanted horses in North America that has been on the brew for awhile.

On the subject of consuming horses, my thoughts are that I have no right to tell somebody else what to eat. Would I ever eat a horse? No! But I do live in Canada (Ontario) and I do know that in Quebec they consume horse meat more often then other parts of Canada. If you sell horse meat in Quebec, you can't sell any other meat in your shop -- not sure why, but that is what I know. I do absolutely hate how horses and animals in general are slaughtered and treated prior to this happening. I do realize that you're not going to want to eat a week old horse that has died of natural causes, just like I wouldn't touch a chicken that somebody found on the side of the road dead. Simple as that. But I do think that killing the animal first is a more humane way vs. just stunning the animal. This is just horses in general, I don't think that they should be rounding up wild horses and shipping them straight to meat. I also don't believe that backyard pets should be shipped off to meat either vs. being humanely put down when they have served their time, but that is how I feel, I feel that it is not a very nice "thank you" for serving me to have to go out that way.

On the aspect of over population, there is something that has to be done, like Lantz has said, there are more and more horror stories of horses being left/dropped wherever because their owner no longer has the means and its even getting difficult to give away a decent horse in some places, and its not just in North America (see: Ireland etc.). For me, I seen this coming when the US closed their slaughter plants, on the brink of a down turn in the economy, if you stood back it was obvious what was on the horizon and it was just a matter of time. Yes, some breeders have cut back or even opted not to breed their mares last year, but not everybody is that responsible. When you think about all of horses out there that were "oops, Blacky got into the field with Betty and now we've got this little one" and even worse, when Blacky and Betty had poor conformation/health issues and then spawned something that was highly unlikely to sell (sometimes even unrideabledue to poor conformation), it was shipped off to the meat market. So in a sense there was an "out" or an "exit" for some of the unwanted population, now there isn't and a lot of this is still happening, dragging the market down for even quality animals in some areas. There is only so much that we can expect rescues to take on, after all, they are generally non profit, and the general public has a tight clutch on their wallet. If you own a horse, you know how expensive one can be, now think of owning multiple horses with major health issues. We can't expect rescues to be over capacity and beyond their means, then we would need rescues to rescue horses from rescues because the horse's situation would become deplorable.

What does this leave us with? A lot of difficult questions. Is it better to ship horses off on a long journey to be slaughtered (Canada and Mexico), where they get to endure deplorable journeys to a horrible end? Or is it better to reopen the slaughter houses in the US, only put more humane practices in place? Can we put a stop, or curb all of the unwanted horses being born through poor breeding management?

This may be a pet peeve of mine, but I honestly believe that we need to encourage further education of those within the industry. There has been such a shun of people who are committed to furthering their education that they have become turned off to the idea and close that door. There have been so many times when I have heard "my great grandpa did it this way" or "all you need is hands on" or "you wont learn anything from a book, hands on is best" that it would make the average person feel ashamed to consider or admit that they furthered their education within the industry.

End of rant/whatever this is, carry on!

Lantz and Nikki - I have to agree with you both that horses in this world are severely overpopulated and people simply don't know how to deal with it. It may have nothing to do at all with where peoples hearts are (ie "I'd rather dump this horse than try to afford it" vs "Maybe this person can give them much better care than I can"), people in general want what's best for their animals, I think. In this case I think humane slaughter is a necessary 'evil' if you will. We have to have a way to manage the population of domestic horses, or they will end up dead of starvation and/or lack of proper medical care anyway. I think the most humane way we can deal with horses who are not fit to survive in this world is to put them out of their misery. Some may say it's "playing God", but we can't let emotions get in the way of reality. I agree that Old Billy who served me many years rounding up cattle or Jimbob my Hanoverian imported from Germany who took me to Olympic Gold deserve more respect than to just be sent off to the meat house, but in the case of horses who are simply not fit to survive, the most humane way we can enact 'natural selection' or 'survival of the fittest' is through slaughter. --- I think this is going to spark up a whole new subject, so I will just leave it at that, as it's not really the main point of this thread.

All of that being said, I think the case of wild BLM horses is a much different situation. It may not be what these groups agendas are about, but seeing as this seems to be the big question (to round up and slaughter, or ?), I will respond to that. I think BLM horses differ greatly from domestic horses. The herds are not subject to individual pupils personal finances, and natural selection for the most part is still in place for these horses (though it takes time, as does dare I say all evolution). These horses also are more fit to survive than a lot of domestic horses, as they can realistically live out perfectly healthy lives while still having conformation that would render them useless in domestic situations. One must also consider that the number of BLM horses over the limit for the given area of land comes no where close to the amount of domestic horses causing overpopulation. Thus, given such a 'small' area of land and a very limited number of animals to deal with, in my opinion it is going to be much easier to simply sterilize the horses deemed unfit for reproduction, and/or X number of animals per herd to limit the number of foals produced each season. In my mind, slaughtering wild horses is just pointless, and really, will probably end up clogging the slaughter houses so that its more difficult to humanely dispose of domestic horses. That's a wild guess, but it's not too far off to think about.

All in all, in my opinion: slaughter domestic horses humanely, continue sterilizing the wild ones.

ETA: I'd like to agree with you, Nikki, about your opinion on people furthering their education. I think a lot of people figure that spending time and money on learning how to effectively manage horses, and all the things that go along with it, is a waste of time/energy. This leads to people feeling ashamed that they'd ever consider such a route in life. Tradition seems to be a huge problem in the horse industry. I use the word problem because it seems people are allowing their traditions to get in the way of what is ethical, sensible, and efficient. Grandpa Joe may have used barbed wire fence back in his day because it's all they had, but we know now that barbed wire is not an effective fencing tool. It all just goes into this vicious cycle of people being uneducated because they are ashamed, and then making others ashamed when they try to stray from tradition in order to learn new ways, and so forth. Something has to give.

-- Edited by Barnmouser Ash on Thursday 6th of January 2011 07:37:27 PM

I just wanted to say that I appreciate everybody's thoughts on the issues of wild and domestic horses, this is an issue that has plagued me in a sense for awhile and I am sure that my boyfriend is tired of hearing my theories/rants over it, when his knowledge of horses and the industry is only above novice lol. I just wanted to pop this on here, as I am a firm believer in something that Ash touched on, which is birth control in wild horse herds. I've heard/read that feed-thrus don't work well enough (according to the BLM), so they didn't want to stick with that approach the last that I had read. While in the grocery store check out line tonight by chance I looked down and somebody must of ditched a copy of a horse mag -- didn't catch the name, only seen words on the cover that pointed towards an article that had to do with mustang management in New Mexico. According to the article that I skimmed over they have had good success rates with using a vaccine called PZP (Porcine Zona Pellucida), they give it to the mares through a dart gun, and it is even safe to give to mares that are already in foal. They tested the vaccine from 1988-1993 and began using it on the herd in 1994 with a very high success rate. Does anybody know anything about PZP? Because it seems like a good choice. It is highly effective and highly safe, so why not? 

Here is just a quick fact sheet that I found on PZP, it is in regard to using it in deer but it'll give you a general idea of the vaccine.

http://www.pzpinfo.org/pzp.html

Okay, offering some facts about PZP and BLM not wanting to stand on a soap box or push any angendas.

PZP only has a 2 year max effective life in a treated mare.
It costs over $500.00 per treatment, per horse.
PZP is controlled by the HSUS - all I'm going to say on this point.
Wild herd populations have seen what will near 35,000 horses removed and held for life captive in pens or unill adopted.
Adoption rates went from 2000 annually to less than 200
Wild herd demographics are reflective of a 50% stallion, 50% mare ratio today.  this is not a natural state for wild herds and has impact on social order, herd behaviour and such.
BLM does not process any horses under BLM managed lands or programs.
BLM's budget for 2010 Horse care at the holding pens was $38 Million of a total BLM Horse Management Budget of $63.9 Million

Lantz McLaren

To add to my post about PZP and BLM.
In 2011, the BLM has contracted to treat 1000 mares of the total 34,000 on BLM lands at a cost of $500/mare.
About 17,000 mares are currently reproductive in this total herd.
So, 16,000 mares will be able to reproduce in 2011
Repopulation runs at a rate of 20% in these wild herds
Thus, 2012 will see the BLM Herd grow by 3200 horses.  Similar repopulation numbers will have been realized in 2010 and 2011 foal crops, so that would be an impact of 10,000 aditional new life horses by 2012.

The numbers above reflect my math and do not represent any science or professional study or knowledge.  And to this number of growth, there is no way to account for the domestic animals being turned into the wild herd. 

Lantz McLaren

And a bit more about PZP

What is PZP and How Does It Work?
A non-cellular membrane known as the zona pellucida (ZP) surrounds all mammalian eggs. The ZP consists of several glycoproteins (proteins with some carbohydrate attached), one of which, ZP3, is thought to be the sperm receptor (the molecule which permits attachment of the sperm to the egg during the process of fertilization). The PZP vaccine is derived from pig eggs. When this vaccine is injected into the muscle of the target female animal, it stimulates her immune system to produce antibodies against the vaccine. These antibodies also attach to the sperm receptors on the ZP of her own eggs and distort their shape, thereby blocking fertilization (see Paterson and Aitkin 1990).

Thus far PZP has been a promising form of contraception in wildlife because

1. it has prevented pregnancy an average of 90% of the time in treated animals, 2 treatments required
2. it can be delivered remotely by small darts
3. the contraceptive effects are reversible
4. it is effective across many species
5. there are no debilitating health side-effects even after long-term use
6. it has almost no effects on social behaviors
7. the vaccine cannot pass through the food chain
8. it is safe to give to pregnant animals

Lantz McLaren

Thank you for the welcome.
This was a vast learning curve for me.  As I unpack and digest some of this knowledge and resource I will attmept to share.  I will make every effort to provide an unbias view point of the facts, as presented at the Summit in my posts.
It is my hope that these posts are accepted as knowledge points and sources of stimulation for people to seek answers, facts and direction creating informed views or choices.

In respect to the all incompassing opinions and outlooks, from the far right, to the far left of this hot and heating topic, I would ask that we  please take the time to go to www.united-horsemen.org and review the web site with express interest in the "Programs" tab and offer your comments, support, opinions or claims to this group. They need to hear from the HORSE OWNERS.

Lantz McLaren

These are just my figures, please note that I am not a magic math person, so I could be off with my figures, and yes I know that I do not have all of the facts most likely. But just some figures of my own here:

37,800 in total holding
11,400 in corrals
26,400 in long term pasture

50% stallion - 18,900
50% mare - 18,900

1000 mares given birth control
17,900 mares are “open” , open being no birth control administered

BLM holding a budget of $63,900,000 million for horse and burro funding (this is not a land budget, this is horse and burro budget according to their website)
$36,900,000 million being spent out of the budget across 2010, plus a carry over of $2,100,000 from 2009
Actual budget of $39,000,000 million spent over 2010.

This is roughly a budget of $1,031/per horse.

PZP dose at $500 per mare = $8,950,000
PZP dose at $21 per mare (quoted on The Science and Conservation Center) = $375,900

If we say that 10,000 of these open mares conceive and carry to term, meaning 10,000 new foals on the ground by 2012. That works out to be an addition to the BLM budget for management (captive foals) of $10,310,000/year.

So overall if all of the mares are darted @ $500/dose, that leaves the BLM $15,950,000 under overall budget for horses and burros. And 10,000 less foals to feed/manage/find homes for (if you can find homes for them at all)?

The effort is worthy and noted Nikki : ) I am totally math-illiterate and am overwhelmed with the attempt at forming a mental image here...

Lantz, love your avatar : )

And please continue with the info!

Going on to check out the United horsemens' site right now : )

Just wanted to add that I found this on The Science and Conservation Center's website under FAQs:

-How much does PZP cost per dose per deer?

The cost of PZP vaccine is between $10 and $25 per dose at present and is constantly being reduced as production becomes more efficient.

-How much would an immunocontraception program cost?

There is no simple answer to this question. Labor costs are the largest expense. Costs may vary according to the role played by volunteers, how many animals are to be vaccinated, how difficult it is to find the animals (the terrain), etc. Administrative costs must also be considered. Many foundations have offered to subsidize these costs.



So my next question then is: is the BLM claiming $500/injection because of the cost to round up every horse, and the cost of actually physically administering the injections? If this is the case, what can be done to bring this cost back down to the Science and Conservation Center's estimated cost?

Hi Lantz, thanks for the clarification.

This leads me to my next question then: I assume PZP is most likely patented, so are there any other approved infertility 'drugs' on the market with the same/similar effects, and easy-to-administer form? I would think there is not, at least in a reasonable price range, or else we would have heard about it.

I would just like to sneak in that I am thoroughly enjoying all of the information being shared here. I am finding myself more and more surprised at the information I did not know. Thanks to all.

Lantz - Thanks for the info :) I think you'll find if you look at The Science and Conservation Center's website under FAQs, some of your questions about PZP's approval may be answered.

What I would like to know is that since the HSUS is promoting BLM's use of PZP, why is the price at $500/injection? Granted PZP in deer is going to be a lot less expensive, but I am doubting that from the distributor it's going to be that drastically different for horses. Is this spike in price due to something I/we are not seeing?

Beat me to it, Lantz : )

I would say fill your boots.  There has and is ongoing efforts by US Congressmen, Senators, Business Men, FDA reps, BLM et al.
I think the true tail lies within HSUS, but I have no clear answers, only what I have learned.
I would suggest, if you are a US resident making contact with your legislative reps and see what can be learned.

Lantz McLaren

The HSUS does in fact seem to advocate for PZP. They give PZP to other organizations (ie Habitat for Horses, etc as well as companies that administer PZP to other animals like deer, elephants, and so on), so why doesn't the BLM just 'hire' farmers and other pupils in a way that doesn't associate them with the BLM (ie they are not directly working/volunteering under the BLM) to obtain these vaccines, and dart the horses themselves? Wild horses run onto farmers land that is being obtained from the BLM, and currently the farmers are forced to take lethal means to protect their prosperity; so why don't we just arm these farmers with non-lethal herd control methods? I think there is some fudge up somewhere between the HSUS and the BLM that is causing negative feelings, inflating the price of this valuable tool. If the HSUS is advocating for PZP's use, I don't see why non-BLM people can't administer the PZP at production cost.

Let me see if I can organize this for myself just a bit...any and all help welcome: )

The primary problem (as *I* see it) is too many horses A) and B) the PZP game..
In the wild, the ratios are off due to the domestic sector's economic influence, dispersal of domestics into feral herds/space and ultimately the lack of [tasteful] alternatives for the surplus.
There is a workable budget available.
A temporary yet viable solution is available but only with a complementery penalty cost for political pantybunching.

So why can't we address the source of the surplus? Again is it politics that supress the need for reality to step up, kick ass and take names? Can't ruffle or regulate the breeders, yadayadayada..... I guess the reality is us, the horseowners, like we aren't already footing the bill beyond balanced?

To answer a previous offer in re of having a suitable outlet, humane and monitored, I have no horses I would market and have alternative opportunities but if I did not, that would be an acceptable and preferred way to the current slaughter process.

I have been a horseman for over forty years.
I have eaten horsemeat.
Yes, we should provide a humane method for the slaughter of unwanted horses for the production of meat.

There is not enough money in private individuals pockets to support all the current horse saving/retirement organizations.
So what do we do....leave them in the desert as is being done here in Utah?
PZP is only a partial solution, it is not the answer.

Justice: Once again and seemingly as always ;) I agree with you. When is the person who is really at fault here going to step up and ignore the monetary factor (as all people involved except SCC who is nonprofit) seem to have plenty of money to work with, and just do what's right? I agree also that we're not going to be able to regulate human behaviour any time soon. Domestic overpopulation is another separate issue to deal with. However, the wild overpopulation seems to have such a simple fix, but someone involved would rather whine about it than take appropriate, common sense action. Grrrr !

This is long, but I felt Sue's comments were well placed here
Lantz McLaren

Report from the Summit of the Horse



More than a thousand people convened either in person, or online through live streaming video, at the South Point Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, January 3rd through the 6th for a historic first gathering of the horse industry, animal scientists, wildlife experts, representatives from more than a dozen land-based tribes, government agencies, business development consultants, equine academics and veterinarians, horse rescue owners, range management professionals, pet animal groups, ranchers and land managers, horse breeders, trainers, and marketers from not only the U.S. but Canada and Mexico as well, attorneys and advocates, and just plain concerned citizens-all in one room, all dealing head on with difficult issues surrounding the management, sustainability, and economic viability of our horses and our horseback cultures. There were more than 209 people on site in Vegas, and another 879 unique viewers on the webcast who collectively put in an amazing 909 hours of live viewing from remotes ranches, and urban centers literally all across this Nation.

The Summit caught the imagination of media from across the country from the Wall Street Journal to the Los Angeles Times, and became an opportunity for ordinary horse people struggling to make a living and to raise their children in what could be once again a healthy, viable, horseback culture to tell their story. The buzz on the Internet was palpable and positive.

Sure there were detractors. The vicious, unprincipled attack dogs of the radical animal rights movement were out in force trying to intimidate and bully anyone and everyone who might have the audacity to actually sit down in a room and talk rationally about the breadth and the scope of the problems, and to work towards solutions. Fortunately there are many good citizens in this country with courage and conviction to resist those tactics who are willing to stand up, tell the truth with dignity and respect, and have an honest dialogue with others who are equally concerned.

That atmosphere of respect and decorum may, in fact, be the finest triumph of the Summit of the Horse. Did we solve every problem? No. But I guarantee you that every single one of us who participated in those discussions, who listened to those experts, who shared our experiences, our frustrations, and our challenges, came away with a much deeper understanding of the true scope and breadth of the problems, and the absolute mandate to move forward to make things better for horses and horse people.

As organizers of the event, the primary objective of Dave Duquette, President of United Horsemen, Tracee Bentley, Legislative Affairs for the Colorado Association of Conservation Districts, and myself as both a leader of United Horsemen, our 501c3 educational and charitable nonprofit, United Organizations of the Horse, our mutual benefit political group, and a Wyoming rancher and legislator-our primary objective as organizers was to create a forum where the voices of the horse world, and those deeply concerned about the health of lands where horses both wild and domestic are managed, could be heard by a misinformed and emotionally manipulated American public. That goal was achieved beyond our expectations.

Secondly, we hoped that out of the event would arise a broad based coalition with the capacity and the resources to drive forward the legislative and regulatory changes necessary for a restoration of a viable, sustainable equine industry, an end to the unnecessary suffering of horses, and protections for the ecological balances so necessary on not only federal, but tribal, state, and private lands for free-roaming horses and native wildlife and forage to thrive sustainably. The coalition we hoped for arose almost spontaneously from the energy created at the Summit, and is quickly coalescing into a powerful and convincing educational force for the new Congress in Washington, D.C., state legislative sessions just now opening, and the American people.

In the coming days and weeks volunteers will be busy compiling, organizing, and publishing in different forms the enormous amount of data and good information that was presented at the Summit. At least three different documentary film efforts will feature in part the presenters and the people at the Summit, and help bring light to horse issues to an even broader audience. The equine academics in attendance are already collaborating with their colleagues across the country to use the material for research, for the education of students, and to build on the body of knowledge we have available.

A testament to the need and the urgency of the challenges in front of the horse industry and resource managers is the fact that the entire movement is a grass roots effort in the purest sense of the term. United Horsemen and the United Organizations of the Horse are entirely volunteer efforts whose leaders, staff members, and volunteers receive no compensation. In spite of a prestigious and world class roster of featured speakers from Congressman Charlie Stenholm, to Bureau of Land Management Director, Bob Abbey, to renowned animal scientist Dr. Temple Grandin, not a single one of the more than 45 featured speakers were paid an honorarium or speaker's fee, and most paid all of their own expenses to attend the Summit. All expenses surrounding the Summit are being paid for by members, sponsors, and contributors who understand that 100% of our resources are devoted to making a difference. If you are in a position to help fund this ongoing effort please contact Dave Duquette, info@unitedhorsemensfront.org, at 541-571-7588 or Sue Wallis, sue.wallis52@gmail.com, at 307-680-8515. Memberships and donations are welcomed and encouraged online at either http://United-Horsemen.org or http://UnitedOrgsoftheHorse.org.

Everyone is encouraged to add their email address to the distribution list for updates and alerts at http://SummitoftheHorse.org and at the top and bottom of this message, to follow on Twitter @HorseSummit, and to like us on Facebook at the Summit of the Horse page.


Sue Wallis, Vice President
United Horsemen