BILL ANALYSIS
SJR 22
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Cathleen Galgiani, Chair
SJR 22 (Florez) - As Introduced: February 10, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 27-7
SUBJECT : Horses: federal legislation; slaughter for human
consumption.
SUMMARY : Memorializes congress to support federal legislation
to protect American horses from slaughter for human consumption.
Specifically, this bill :
1)States that California voters passed a ban, in 1998, on the
slaughter of horses and the sale of horses for human
consumption, and that California horses continue to be
transported or sold out-of-state, requiring a passage of a
federal ban on the movement of horses for the purposes of
slaughter for human consumption.
2)Claims that the slaughter of American horses has continued
unabated despite the closing in 2007 of the remaining
operating U.S. horse slaughter facilities.
3)States there is federal legislation introduced as
"Conyers-Burton Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2009, that
would prohibit the possession, shipping, transporting,
purchasing, selling, delivering, or receiving of horses and
other equines, in interstate or foreign commerce, for
slaughter for human consumption.
4)Claims that horse slaughter has been detrimental to
communities where slaughter facilities are located, causing
significant adverse impacts, from nuisance odors to chronic
sewer and environmental violations.
5)Claims that findings support that horse slaughter increases
and abets horse theft, and that it is not a means of control
for unwanted, abandoned, or neglected horses, but a for-profit
operation driven by demand for horsemeat in certain foreign
countries.
6)Claims American horses are not raised, fed or medicated in
SJR 22
Page 2
accordance with the Federal Drug Administration's guidelines
for food animals, creating a potentially unsafe, unfit product
for human consumption.
7)Claims American horses are an icon of our history, traditions,
culture, revered for contributions to the building of this
country, their companionship and special bond with people.
8)States that the California Legislature, both Senate and
Assembly, jointly urges Congress to support federal
legislation to protect American horses from slaughter for
human consumption.
9)Directs the Secretary of the Senate to send copies of SJR 22
to the President, Vice President, Majority leader of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House and to each Senator and each
House Representative from California serving in Congress.
EXISTING LAW makes it a felony to import or export from
California, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any
horse with the intent of killing or having it killed if the
known purpose is that it will be used for human consumption.
Statute defines "horse" as any equine, including, horse, pony,
burro, or mule. Establishes a violation is punishable by state
imprisonment for 16 months, or two or three years. Prohibits
the offering for sale of horsemeat for human consumption and
make it a misdemeanor violation punishable by a fine of not more
than $1000 or confinement in a jail for not less than 30 days or
more than two years, or both a fine and jail. Further, statute
provides that subsequent violations are punishable by
imprisonment in state prison for no less than two years and not
more than five years. (Penal Code Section 598c and 598d.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Legislative Counsel has keyed this resolution
"non-fiscal."
COMMENTS : In 1998, an Initiative Statute, Proposition 6, was
place on the ballot and approved by the California electorate,
that created a crime for the slaughter of horses for the sale of
horsemeat for human consumption. While California did not have
any facilities being used to slaughter horses for human
consumption at the time, several other states did. Since 1998,
and with the various efforts by supporters, including federal
legislation, all horse slaughter facilities have been either
closed or have stopped processing horses. At least one of those
SJR 22
Page 3
facilities had been, and continues to operate, under European
Union Standards for slaughter and processing of animals, which
have been claimed by some to be more humane than United States
(U.S.) Standards.
According to the author, although horse slaughter has ended in
the U.S., horses remain subject to "intense suffering and abuse
through transport and slaughter" at slaughter facilities outside
our boarders (Canada and Mexico), that are being supplied
animals from the U.S. Further, these foreign facilities have
been found to use non-stunning methods that may or may not
paralyze the animal, and could leave the animal conscious while
being bled-out or dismembered.
While the intent of SJR 22 is to encourage the passage of
federal legislation, several of the declarations may be more
inflammatory than factual. The statement that "Horse slaughter
is not humane euthanasia and is in fact animal torture and
cruelty" is an opinion of some professionals and based upon the
methodology used for the kill, can draw a different opinion by
other professionals. It is true that slaughter is not humane
euthanasia and humane slaughter may be oxymoronic, but to infer
efforts of humane slaughter are in fact animal torture and
cruelty seems a moral of anti-slaughter groups. On the
contrary, the reported kill methods being used in foreign
countries for horses do not appear to meet any standard of
humane handling. The committee may wish to reword page 1, line
17 and 18, to reflect that the slaughter methods in Canada and
Mexico are what are being identified, since horses are no longer
slaughtered in the U.S.
Of the last three horse slaughter facilities, two had records of
violating sewer standards and created nuisance odors for the
communities in which they were located, and both have been
closed. The third facility, which continues to operate, did not
have violations or known odor problems. It operated in
accordance with local, state and federal requirements, as well
as in accordance with European Slaughter Standards. The
committee may wish to reword page 2, line 1 through 4, to
reflect that not all horse slaughter facilities have been
detrimental to their communities.
The background provided to substantiate that horse slaughter
increased and abetted horse theft is a White Paper which looks
at the affects of the passage in 1998 of Proposition 6, and is
SJR 22
Page 4
not peer reviewed. The paper states that prior to the
Proposition's passage, 1994 to 1998, 199 horses were reported
missing or stolen and 90 of those were recovered. This compares
to after 1999 through 2004, after the Proposition's passage, 138
horses were reported stolen and 36 were recovered. The author
does not evaluate or compare any other factors into the
analysis, nor does she draw a conclusion from these numbers.
While there may be a correlation between horse slaughter and
theft, to state that there are findings of such has not been
substantiated. The committee may wish to strike page 2, lines 5
and 6, to state that horse slaughter provides a quick and likely
untraceable avenue for disposal of stolen horses.
RELATED FEDERAL LEGISLATION :
HR 503 (Rep. Conyers, D-MI, and Rep. Burton, R-IN), and S 727
Sen. Landrieu, D-LA, and Sen. Ensign, R-NV), in 2009-2010, bans
horse slaughter in the U.S.
HR 503 (Rep. Schakowsky, D-IL, and Rep. Whitfield, R-KY, Rep.
Spratt, D-SC, and Rep. Rahall, D-WV) and S 311 (Sen. Landrieu,
D-LA, and Sen. Ensign, R-NV) in 2007-2008, bans horse slaughter
in the U.S., and passed the Senate Commerce Committee, and HR
6598 (Rep. Conyers, D-MI, and Rep. Burton, R-IN) passed the
House Judiciary Committee.
HR 503 (Rep. Sweeney, R-NY, and Rep. Spratt, D-SC) and S 1915
(Sen. Ensign, R-NV, and Sen. Landrieu, D-LA) in 2005-06, created
a ban on horse slaughter in the U.S., which passed the House by
263-146 votes; also in 2005, the FY 2006 Agriculture
Appropriations Bill was amended on the House and Senate floor to
de-fund taxpayer funded inspections for horse slaughter.
HR 857 (Rep. Sweeney, R-NY) and S 2352 (Sen. Ensign, R-NV) in
2003-2004 placed a ban on horse slaughter in the U.S.
HR 3781 (Rep. Morella, D-MD) in 2002, established a ban on horse
slaughter in the U.S.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
The Humane Society of the United States (Sponsor)
SJR 22
Page 5
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
California Horsemen's Alliance
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
Tranquility Farm
United Animal Nations
Veterinarians for Equine Welfare
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Jim Collin / AGRI. / (916) 319-2084