Questions from Ride! Magazine concerning Proposition 6

Options and Enforcement
Q. If the Initiative passes, where will horses go that would otherwise go to slaughter?
A. Some, if given enough time, will recycle into new homes. And I think, hopefully, most will be humanely euthanized.
Q. If euthanized, where will the bodies go?
A. The state of California has a number of rendering plants, and these plants have dead carcass pickup runs from the top of California to the bottom of California. We've been in contact with the owners of all the rendering plants and Don Franco, president of the Rendering Association out of Washington, D.C. We have written documentation from these rendering plants that they will take them. If we are talking about an average of 7,500 horses per year (that go to slaughter), any one plant in one week can accommodate 7,500 horse carcasses. There would be no burden on the rendering system in California with the additional 10,000 horses a year.
In addition to the rendering plants, there are 350 landfills through the Integrated Waste Management Program of California. Twenty-six are equipped to accept large animal carcasses, which includes horses.
Q. Opponents say dumping horse carcasses in landfills could violate clean water acts and spread disease.
A. When addressed to the Integrated Waste Management Board, after they stopped laughing that asked, "Do you have any idea what is put into landfills?" as if a few horse carcasses would make any difference. But obviously they had given it enough thought that they designated these 26 landfills as being acceptable to take the carcasses.
Q. One of the biggest arguments is that Proposition 6 will change the horse's legal definition, maybe not through the bill itself but through definitions created by by others after the bill is passed. People fear politicians may say if the horse is not livestock, then it must be a pet, and that could lead to government licensing.
A. It is a paranoid scare tactic, and none of all of it is based in truth. There is nothing in the bill that says that the horse is no longer livestock, nothing in the initiative that addresses status or classification. The only thing the initiative addresses is that the horse will no longer be slaughtered for human consumption. If you go to the California Veterinary Medical Association glossary of definitions, you have livestock and then you have what are called food animals. Yes, in the agricultural code they do have the horse listed as livestock. What you will never find is the horse listed as a food animal. In fact, the horse would be exempt from that.
The only thing that we are saying is that after passage, the horse will no longer be able to be used as a human consumption food animal. It can remain livestock, it will remain in the agricultural code, it will be perceived by some as a companion animal, a recreational animal, a pleasure animal. What ever you want to call it-you can call it a radish-what it comes down to the horse is a horse. It is an equine and can not be slaughtered for human consumption.
Q. Your advertising calls a horse a pet. Do you fear giving off the wrong image?
A. We consider the horse a companion animal. The criteria for a companion animal is an animal that is not raised for food, not eaten in the respective culture or country, is a domesticated animal, accompanies man and is generally given a name. That is the classic definition of a companion animal, and that is the definition of a horse. I certainly call the horse a companion animal. That is an animal that evolved after the industrial revolution from the beast of burden to clearly an animal used for recreation, pleasure and sport. And it is not raised nor bred for food.
Q. How do you propose dealing with rank horses, biters, buckers, those that have gone unsuccessfully through 3 or 4 trainers, and animals who are simply unwilling to work with human beings?
A. That's going down to the individual human being that has the horse at that time. I certainly have seen people who say a horse is mean and rank, and then I've seen other human beings take the horse and the horse is fine. I have found historically that human beings push their limitations on the horse and blame the horse. It's usually a lack of knowledge. However if you are saying the decision comes down to extreme behavioral problems, then humane euthanasia is the option.
Q. The Libertarian argument against Proposition 6 is that it creates another unnecessary layer of government regulations. Why can't people do what they want with their horses?
A. There's no disclosure in the market, and people are having their horses bought or taken through misrepresentation and fraud to go to slaughter. This is an animal that is not a food animal, so the horse needs protection. This is a situation where every single tenet in the initiative is voluntarily embraced by American in California. There would be no need for this initiative if it weren't for the foreign market. But the horse needs protection against the foreign market.
Q. Libertarians say the California Legislative Counsel reviewed Proposition 6 and found it violates the United States Constitution.
A. We have an opinion from a world authority on the Constitution that says it is not. They got Ken Maddy-and we know State Senator Ken Maddy is no friend-to muscle the legislation to give him an opinion he wanted. None of this matters unless it goes to the Supreme Court, and they will decide. What was interesting was the Legislative Counsel sent it through about six balancing tests. We won in every single balancing test, but their final decision was that it would be burdensome to interstate commerce. It will come down to: Does the public interest outweigh the burden-and it would have to be proven to be excessive-on interstate commerce. The horse slaughter market nationally constitutes .003 percent of the export. California horses fed into the national market is about 3 percent of that .003 percent, and with that they will have to prove a chilling impact on commerce. And once it passes as a state referendum, it certainly proves public interest.
Q. Is there money or time to fight the issue in court? Will the public care enough to want to see it fought?
A. We have to say yes. If they care enough to pass the law, if they care enough about protecting part of California's heritage and culture, and if they care enough about protecting one of their pets and companion animals from a carnage of a foreign meat market, yes, they will care.
Q. In the criminal language of the bill, it says people who "should have known" the horse would go to slaughter are liable for prosecution. It's a vague term to define legally. How do you want it used?
A. The easiest way I can describe it is a classic situation based on something that already has legal precedence. A well-know large Southern California killer buyer was circumventing brand inspection. He said he was taking horses over to Arizona and selling them to a feed lot, so he didn't need to have the horses inspected. He was saving $10.00 a head by saying he wasn't selling the horses to slaughter, but to a feed lot. What the feed lot did with the horses was their business, he didn't know what happened to the horses.
When this went to court, the "I didn't know"-when the prosecution found through the feed lot records that most of the horses went directly to a slaughterhouse and that the man charged had been in the business of dealing horses to slaughter for 30 years-didn't hold up. The fact-finders, the judge and jury, did find him guilty.
You have dealers like this who have been dealing horses 25 to 30 years. They have picked up horses and sold them to slaughter, then said "I didn't know." That probably won't hold up if it passes.
Q. Could that language be used overzealously? For example, could a person be prosecuted for unknowingly sending a horse to an auction yard, having the horse bought by a killer buyer, who then sell it to someone else? How far can it go?
A. That right there is a classic example. The first person legitimately didn't know. There is no history of multiple horses for sale, no history of dealing horses to slaughter, no history of a business. He "did not know." And if he sold it to a killer buyer and the killer buyer sold it to the slaughterhouse, then that's the killer buyer, not the person who unwittingly and unknowingly had his horse bought, that would go to trial.
Q. If Proposition 6 passes, how will it be enforced?
A. Probably as they treat everything else. We have problems enforcing every law we have. Take the most extreme murder-is there anyone in law enforcement preventing murder? No. If a murder occurs, thank goodness there's something on the books because so there is punitive recourse against the criminal. Will there be anyone stopping the dealers who want to load 48 horses onto the back of a cattle truck in the light of day and taking them across the border and start dealing? No-until they get caught. But when they get caught, it's going to be a felony.
Q. How will the law be financed?
A. I'm sure through the taxpayers. But the report from the Attorney General's office says the impact to the taxpayers would be minimal to nothing.
Q. Why would law enforcement get themselves involved enough to want to educate themselves and use the manpower?
A. That's their job. Once it's a law and once it is a felony, that's their job to enforce.
Q. What law enforcement office will be in charge of catching these criminals?
A. State Police, Highway Patrol. Bottom line, it will come down to some one caring enough to monitor existing dealers at the auctions, see then buying, document them loading, see them cross state lines, know that they are going to set up a case. We all know it take a great deal of effort to get a district attorney to make any filings. It won't be done whimsically on one person with one horse. It is going to be done with a premeditated amount of effort against the known handful of existing dealers who deal large quantities of horses in California? Yes, that will be done.