Immodest Proposal

Horse Slaughter

By R.T. Fitch on January 10, 2011 • ( 7 Comments )

Submitted by Faith Bjalobok Ph.D. ~ Fellow Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics

A Modest Proposal

For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland

From Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and

For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

By Jonathan Swift (1729)

The following excerpts are taken from Swift’s proposal:

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance: and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the as to have his statute set up for a preserver of the nation.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London ,that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, toasted, baked or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich, I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child-bearing.

Swift wrote the Modest Proposal as a political satire. His goal in suggesting that the solution to poverty was eating the children of the poor was to point out that the problems of poverty were a consequence of the political and economic system of his time. In writing the proposal, Swift intentionally utilized agricultural terms to describe the poor of Ireland in order to make a political statement about the current political system that created the poverty than found its victims deplorable. In contrast the pro-horse slaughter activists utilize non-agricultural terms in an attempt to create a positive connotation of horse slaughter. Slaughter becomes the humane processing of horses. If we substitute the word horses for children then the analogy between Swift’s proposal and horse slaughter becomes all too apparent. The stark difference is of course that Swift’s intention was to bring to light the political and economic conditions that led to poverty while the intent of the pro-horse slaughter activists is not to identify the causes of horse overpopulation but to profit financially from a situation created by over breeding and a failing economy. It is important to note, that it is certainly not my intention to claim that eating horses is analogous to eating children. My point merely is to show the similarity between the two arguments and point out one is intended as a political satire whose goal is to bring to light the problem of poverty while the other is intended to convince the American public to accept the permissibility of slaughtering horses so that a few may profit financially from a situation created by over breeding and a failing economy. In other words, Swift was a humanitarian and the pro slaughter activists are mercenary opportunists.

Swift’s point along with the anti-horse slaughter proponents is to identify the socioeconomic cause of overpopulation and address it rather than killing and eating the victims. From my perspective, there are four distinct categories of horses residing within the United States: wild horses, estray/feral horses, incarcerated horses, and companion horses. The claim of neither overpopulation nor its causes cannot be generalized to all categories but rather are specific to each category of horse.

In terms of the wild horses (those that have never been domesticated) the question remains to be answered if in fact there is an overpopulation problem. In order to answer that question, an independent study conducted by objective scientists held to the same standards as university researchers seeking IRB approval is required. Once there is an accurate count of the number of wild mustangs and an unbiased scientific determination of the acreage needed for herd sustainability, then it can be scientifically determined whether or not there is in fact an overpopulation problem. If there is indeed an over population problem in terms of wild horses then solutions to the problem can be studied. Those solutions cannot, according to the BLM and the vast majority of Americans, include slaughter.

The question of estray horses sometimes referred to as feral horses first requires the clarification and the development of an operational definition of both terms. Estray in some instances seems to be utilized to identify the horses, which some individuals claim, are being turned loose by their owners in every part of the United States. With the exception of a few substantiated sightings in the western United States, the existence of these so called  estray horses appears to as legitimate as reported  sightings of witches and unicorns. While many claim to have seen these mythological creatures running wild and free over the American landscape, the truthfulness of those claims seems to be on the same level of truthfulness as urban legends which claim such things as knowing someone who woke up in a bath tub of ice to find a cell phone and a note instructing them to call 911 because their kidneys had been harvested.  Of course, everyone knows someone who knows someone that this happened to. Similarly, everyone knows someone who has encountered these mythological creatures galloping through parks and meadows and appearing out of nowhere on country roads. Prior to discussing any solution to this so called problem, the existence of these mythological creatures must be established and documented. As to the horses which some individuals refer to as feral, this is actually a misuse of the term. A feral animal be it cat or horse are the offspring of domesticated animals that have been abandoned by their owners to fend for themselves and as such lack human socialization. Therefore, if this term is going to be uniformly applied, we will have to wait for the mythological estray horse to reproduce. In any case the solution to this problem is already encoded in the law. Simply put it is illegal to abandon domesticated animals. The solution is simply to enforce the law and prosecute the offenders to the fullest extent of the law.

The problem of overpopulation in relation to incarcerated horses has a solution. It should be noted that I am using the term incarcerated horses to refer those horses which are currently being held by the BLM in their holding facilities. The cause is of course the roundup of the wild mustangs. A solution has been developed by Madeline Pickens and her concept of a horse sanctuary. The BLM needs only to begin the process of paroling the incarcerated horses to the sanctuary to begin the resolving that problem.

In light of the above, it is clearly a tenable position to argue that the only category of horses for which the identification of the cause of overpopulation and its solution needs to be established are the horses I have categorized as companion animals. Contrary to the illegitimate claim of the pro-slaughter activists, American horses are not by definition livestock. Livestock are those animals raised by animal agriculture to provide humankind with some product whether it is eggs, meat or wool. American horses do not fit those criteria. They are not now nor have they ever been livestock. In 2004, the United States Senate passed S452 introduced by then Senator Ben Night Horse Campbell establishing December 13^th as a national day of the horse.  This bill recognizes the many historical contributions horses have made in the development of the United States.

Admittedly, there appear to be approximately 100,000 horses a year that are no longer wanted by their owners. When the number of unwanted companion horses is compared to the millions of unwanted dogs and cats that are euthanized annually in the United States, the management of the unwanted horse problem becomes  much less insurmountable.

In order to address this issue the first step is to identify the cause of so many homeless horses. The primary cause of course is the same as it is with any species over-breeding.  In terms of companion horses breeding is completely controlled by humans both on the level of the professional breeder and the backyard breeder. If we have too many horses, then why are we continuing to over breed? The motivating factor as it is in so many human actions is of course money. Professional breeders often receive breeding incentives in addition to the money they charge for the horses they breed and sell. Backyard breeders are similarly motivated by money. Many of the backyard breeders resemble the puppy mill dog breeders.  It is reasonable to argue that the long term solution obviously is contingent on decreasing the number of horses that are bred annually in this country. This could be accomplished in several ways. First, repeal all incentives for breeding and second require all breeders to purchase a breeding license.  In light of the fact that these horses are most accurately labeled companion animals, there is no reason that the same policies that are currently employed in attempting to reduce the number of dogs and cats coming into shelters could not be employed to reduce the number of horses being sent to slaughter.

Clinics could be set up to provide low cost laparoscopic spaying and gelding. Nathan Winograd’s “no kill equation” could be adopted and amended to apply to horses. People could be persuaded to adopt rescued or surrendered horses. Just as we say “old dogs are cool” the same can be said about older horses.

Arguably the second cause which contributes to the 100,000 horses sent to slaughter facilities is the failing economy. As the economy continues to falter ALL animal abuse continues to rise as does the number of animals surrendered to shelters or sent to auctions. It is simply the consequence of higher costs associated with caring for companion animals and the loss of income.

The short term solution calls for us is to find practical solutions for the number of unwanted horses that already exist. Again the same procedures utilized for dogs and cats can be applied. Just as we have shelters for dogs, cats, and rabbits, we need to create and fund more equine rescues. Most cities have pet pantries to provide struggling people with free food so that they can keep their pets. Similarly, hay pantries could be established to help those who have lost their ability to feed their horses. Just as Science Diet provides food to dog and cat rescues for the price of shipping, horse feed producers could be persuaded to do the same for equine rescues. Science Diet profits from free advertising as a condition of participation in the program requires rescues to supply adopters with a free bag of Science Diet. Additional funding for these alternatives to slaughter could come from a license fee for horses. Again horses are companion animals and like dogs we could require that all horses be licensed. As a multiple horse owner I personally would have no objection. Those who actually make money from horses of course would bear a greater financial responsibility than the single horse owner but that is as it should be. Irresponsible breeders whether they are breeding dogs, cats, potbellied pigs or horses have for too long been the primary cause of the problem without bearing any responsibility for its resolution.

Of course the pro-slaughter activists will vehemently object and cry that slaughter is the best option for the horses. My response is that the horses going to slaughter are by definition companion animals and the responsible horse owner like the responsible dog and cat owner will care for their companion for life and when the time comes that they no longer have any quality of life, they will do the right thing and have their companion humanely euthanized by their veterinarian. The equine puppy miller on the other hand will abandon the horse to the kill buyer hoping to get the last cent from their hide. This is an IMMODEST PROPOSAL born out of the greed and self-serving interests of  a singular non-representative facet of the horse industry; those who view horses as mere objects to be bought and sold for the sole purpose of turning a profit. They like their IMMODEST PROPOSAL do not represent either the American public or a majority of the horse industry.

Visit Dr. Bjalobok’s other animal endeavors by clicking (HERE) and (HERE)

Related Articles

• Horse Slaughter Proponents Try to Raise Their Odds in Vegas (animals.change.org)
• Wallis’ Wyoming Horse Slaughter Plant Plans Turn Flaky (rtfitch.wordpress.com)
• Pro Horse Slaughter “Summit” Not Happy with Dr. Grandin (rtfitch.wordpress.com)
• BLM Participation in “BloodFest” Shocking (rtfitch.wordpress.com)
• “Summit of the Horse” a Misnomer (rtfitch.wordpress.com)
• Wyoming Legislator Faces Ethics and Fraud Allegations Over Horse Slaughter Plans (animals.change.org)

Categories: Horse Slaughter, The Force of the Horse

Tagged as: Bureau of Land Management, Cruelty to animals, Equine, Horse, Horse Slaughter, Jonathan Swift, Poverty, United States