On 7th September, FNOVI (the National Federation of Italian Veterinarian Orders), published an analysis about some problems we might have to face in the future titled “Euthanasia and veterinary profession between an increasing equine population, legality and code of conduct”.  We would like to underline a few points, make some notes about it and invite you to read it. We are in fact concerned that the parallel someone made between this document and the aberrant, undocumented, simplistic, badly reasoned stance taken by FVE on 11th July 2011 (see our news dated Sept. 16th, 2011) is discouraging its reading.

Along with the accurate analysis regarding the number of horses present in Italy, which confirms the perception of all the people involved in this sector—that we don’t know exactly how many horses there are inside the national borders – the document deals with the problem of a possible equine “overpopulation” due to the fact these animals’ lives are longer than their life as athletes, and that a great number of horse-athletes are excluded from slaughtering for ethical or practical reasons.

Aside the fact that without certain data about the number of horses present in the country, it seems useless to speculate about a possible, future overpopulation, we would like to point out the problem was put in bad way:

The document starts from shared considerations we can summarize so:
- The life of a horse continues after the end of its sport career;

- The euthanasia at the end of such career is a crime, and it’s forbidden by the veterinary ethical code. Also, to this writer, the idea of a sentient being’s life being seen only in function of the dominant species’ entertainment or profit, brings in mind analogies with ideologies fashionable during the darkest years of the twentieth century.

- The increased number of equines excluded from slaughter has as consequence that there must be more attention toward the welfare of not-performing animals. In other words, in IHP’s opinion, we should finally grow up and become fully responsible of the creatures we take charge of.

However, in disagreement with the hypothesis stated by FNOVI’s document, we firmly believe that, if well done, the transition from “animal for profit” to “animal for profit divided in FFP and not-FFP”, then to “animal not for slaughter” and, finally, to “animal of affection” won’t lead to any overpopulation (nor to “a la eclipse of civilization” legislation allowing end-of-career euthanasia).

Paradoxically, we believe the slaughter ban would bring economical benefits to the sector, which would be finally obliged by the market to decrease the quantity and increase the quality. And the increased quality would bring more and better work to the professional categories involved, first of all the equine veterinaries, who would finally deal more with equine gerontology.

The cues for this progression come from FNOVI’s document that, in its final proposals – which we share – asks for an “efficient and effective register, also finalized to the (equine) welfare; an (equine) welfare legislation in tune with the problems; information campaigns, intelligent and adequate education and training of any and all professionals involved”. More in the specific:

Register: it appears clear that without a picture of the number of equines, their location, typology and peculiarities , it is quite difficult to act. It is thus necessary to make the equine register work. It would also be desirable for the register to record the cause of death of the animals and, if euthanasia was practiced, its reasons, and the veterinary who practiced it.

Welfare: we absolutely need rules about the equine welfare. All too often the current rules – conceived for a great number of different species – are difficult to be applied to the equine species, which, we remind you, hasn’t been studied in its ethologic aspects for a far too long time.

Education and training: It is necessary to adequately train all the people intending to buy/breed an equine. It is necessary to educate the aspiring owners about the rules they will need to respect and to take full responsibility of their animal’s wellbeing and – as we wait for the hoped-for slaughter ban – of the protection of the food consumer. We believe the lack of adequate education and training could lead to public costs, as it is in fact stated by those wanting the institution of legal “irresponsibility” , meaning those “concentration camps for end-of-career horses”.

Insurance: It exists the risk that during the 30 years or so of an equine’s lifespan, the owner’s economical condition can change, making them unable to keep on supporting the horse. They could then try to saddle the institutions with these costs. It is necessary to oblige any equine owner to insure themselves to avoid this occurrence.

Euthanasia: In our opinion, it is absolutely necessary to regulate in an even stricter way the possibility to euthanize a horse, leaving it in the veterinarian’s hands only, and exclusively for those cases when the animal’s life is incompatible with its wellbeing. The horse currently is an anomalous animal for profit. Its value is expressed not in its meat, but in its athleticism. It is evident the risk the horse industry could be tempted to use the euthanasia of the not-performing animals as a tool of “factory management”. If up to now the horse industry has also utilized slaughter to make the business run, in the future we wouldn’t want to see it make an indiscriminate use of euthanasia. We believe that those individuals wanting to eliminate from their industry not-performing “products”, should dedicate themselves to a sector not involving sentient beings.

Will all of this kill the business? This writer believes that (unfortunately) the business will go on; it will even improve alongside the horses’ welfare and average lifespan. It will be enriched by new, more culturally educated professionals, and will leave behind the journeys of death, the slaughtering, the obscurantist ideas of end-of-career euthanasia and concentration camps for “useless” horses and the ethically impossible “throwaway” of animals.

The show and racing worlds will be, in the end, better. It is however necessary a global vision of the situation, without leaving space to simplistic and ethically inacceptable ideas as the ones expressed by the FVE or by those individuals, that after having used and squeezed to the end the athletic potentiality of their animal, would pretend to have it killed by a veterinary to cut the costs and/or buying/breeding a “new” one.