Time to Pass the SAFE Act, But How?

In 2009 when Tom Rooney joined the U.S. House of Representatives for Florida's 17th Congressional District–a Southwest portion of the Sunshine State–he assumed passage of a bill to permanently ban the commercial slaughter of horses, along with their export for such purposes, was a slam dunk.

“I did not think that this was going to be a controversial issue,” said Rooney, now the president and CEO of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA). “It immediately became one of the most contentious, where I was like, 'yeah, I oppose horse slaughter or the exportation for human consumption. Who wouldn't be for that?'”

The bill in question is the Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE Act), which would formally put an end to the slaughter of horses in the U.S. for human consumption. Right now, the ban on horse slaughter in this country is by omission. Appropriation acts prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from using funds to send their staff to inspect horses before slaughter.

In its current iteration, the bill would also prohibit the “shipping, transporting, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donating” of horses for commercial slaughter.

Passage of the SAFE Act would not be a panacea for the industry's ongoing efforts to fill gaping aftercare gaps across the country–nor is it necessary for these gaps to be filled unilaterally. But many believe it would hasten that process, forcing a swifter expansion of a more organized aftercare network.

As to the why of the bill's unsuccessful passage thus far–it has been knocking around the capital in some form or other since about 2001–blame in part legislative inertia in Washington.

“I'd say the last seven, eight, nine, 10 years, it's been so stagnant on really everything. They're trying to do sweeping bills, but even then, they're not always succeeding,” said Chris Heyde, founder of Blue Marble Strategy, a government affairs firm in Washington, D.C., pointing to the delays in passing the Farm Bill, to which some legislators are trying to attach the SAFE Act.

Rooney agrees. Though he said that legislators from the Western states have proven some of the biggest opponents to the SAFE Act, seeing the bill as a “slippery slope” towards prohibiting slaughter of other animals.

This ideological divide can be seen through groups like Protect the Harvest, founded by wealthy oilman Forrest Lucas.

In the eyes of Protect the Harvest, not only does the SAFE Act need to be quashed, but the USDA should once again fund and facilitate horse slaughter on U.S. soils, where the treatment of the horses, they argue, would be better than in Mexico and Canada.

“Opening processing in the United States will help curb the problem of unwanted horses being abandoned, starved or shipped long distances outside of animal welfare oversight,” it writes.

Have the Western states ever loosened their stance on the bill?

“If you're asking has this issue softened over the years, I don't think so,” Rooney replied.

The issue of “unwanted” horses is an argument oft repeated by one of the most vocal opponents to the bill, Douglas Corey, a veterinarian from Washington and former president of the Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP).

In 2020, Corey told a subcommittee on health within the House committee on Energy and Commerce that the bill offers “no solution” to the problem of the unwanted horse, which represents “a group of horses within the domestic equine population that are unwanted, needful, or their owners are no longer interested in them, or not financially able to aid the horse with appropriate care.”

Corey added that “proponents of the legislation suggest that these horses will be absorbed by the alternative homes, rescues and retirement facilities.” However, “these options are already under stress and overcrowded,” he added.

This argument, said Heyde, has been wheeled out repeatedly over the years even as the number of horses sold for slaughter has fallen dramatically.

“When he started that speech, we were slaughtering 150,000-200,000 horses a year in the United States, and he said, 'oh, what are we going to do with all these horses.' And then we were slaughtering 70,000 horses. 'Oh gosh, the sky's falling in, what are we going to do with all these horses?'” said Heyde.

But approximately 20,000 horses are still exported for slaughter annually. And Corey's argument that rehoming and rescue centres are stretched thin remains painfully accurate.

Heyde, however, sees the equation as one of simple supply and demand.

“Now we're down to about 20,000 horses [exported for slaughter annually] and there are no horses running down the streets. There are now more rescues than there ever have been. We've got a 'Homes for Horses Coalition' that I helped start with the Humane Society several years ago,” he said.

“What did we do with all of the horses? Something happened to them,” he added. “And don't forget, the nature of a rescue is to operate at capacity.”

Chelsea Perez, senior project manager for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), agrees how passage of the SAFE Act has been obstructed by dissemination of “misinformation” clouding the issue.

“There has been an 88% reduction [in horses going to slaughter] over 10 years, and at the same time, there has been a reduction in neglect cases,” said Perez, adding how the number of American horses exported for slaughter represents a small percentage of the horses that die of other causes each year, and dealt with responsibly. “There's just no evidence that slaughter and abuse and neglect are tied together.”

The problem, Perez added, is how some misleading talking points are baked-in among important stakeholder groups.

“People genuinely believe them sometimes,” she said. “A lot of the veterinarians that I speak to on the ground, they believe them, they think it's true, even though that's just not what we're seeing.”

Which comes to the role that non-profit organizations play in the bill's passage.

Groups like HSUS and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) have made a public show of support for the SAFE Act over the years.

Heyde, however, questions just how incentivized some animal advocacy groups are to get the bill over the legislative finish line.

Indeed, investigative news outlets like ProPublica have shone a light on the broader non-profit world in recent years, showing how in some cases, their immense money-making efforts have been used to enrich the fundraisers while spending little on the causes.

“When I first came into the animal movement 20 years ago now, I asked around because I wanted to go to an organization that I knew actually did the work, and was not just a money-making, fundraising machine,” said Heyde.

According to ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer, the HSUS' 2022 revenues were in excess of $157 million. All told, HSUS executive compensation topped $3.2 million that year. According to Charity Navigator, the organization spent about 68% of its 2022 revenues on program expenses, and 25% on fundraising.

In 2022, revenues for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) topped $376 million, while its president and CEO Matt Bershadker earned over $1 million. The ASPCA spent about 76% of its revenues on program expenses in 2022, and nearly 20% on fundraising efforts.

Animal Wellness Action is another group that fundraises off the SAFE Act. The organization was founded by Wayne Pacelle, who resigned as CEO of the HSUS in 2018 after being accused of sexual harassment and assault by several former employees. The non-profit record $1.06 million in revenues in 2022. Nearly 13% of the organization's total expenses went to executive pay that year.

Perez pushed back strongly against any suggestion the HSUS is using the issue of horse slaughter as a fund-raising opportunity.

“There is no part of our internal work that reflects the suggestion that we want to fundraise off of this. I can genuinely stand by that comment,” said Perez. “And I can tell you personally, the slaughter issue is one that consumes a massive amount of my mental energy.”

Perez added how at a recent series of meetings, she and her colleagues sought to determine what “success would look like” in their work on issues like horse slaughter.

“Across the board, people wrote on the papers they turned in that success would look like we wouldn't have a job anymore,” Perez said.

Some 23 years after the first iteration of the legislation was introduced, however, what would it take to push the SAFE Act over the finish line?

What Needs to Happen Now?

All interviewed for the story believed how, in this era of Congressional dysfunction, it would need folding into a larger omnibus bill, as happened with the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA).

Another useful approach, said Heyde, would be for “spread-thin” animal organizations to focus their time and resources on a select set of bills at any one time.

“A great deal of perception is that it's already done,” said Heyde, of the SAFE Act. “So, when you get [House and Senate] members that already think it's gone, and you get animal groups who are pushing 6000 different bills–of which this is still one of them–it gets lost in that big mess of animal bills. Members get distracted. They go off and work on other legislation.”

Perez, on the other hand, takes a pluralistic approach.

“It definitely is much better when we as animal organizations work together,” said Perez. “In everything, it's more impactful to have a united voice, and be aligned in what we are asking for.”

If the SAFE Act also had strong backing from influential voices within the racing industry, Perez added, that too would further engender legislative support–something Heyde agrees with.

“I wish the racing industry would be more aggressive in it. I wish we had more leaders,” said Heyde, adding how the death of long-time horse advocate John Hettinger has hampered recent efforts. “We just need to reinvigorate it with major donors and major business leaders and major owners.”

At least two of racing's most visible and vocal owners have come forward to press the issue. Last month in the TDN, John Stewart promised to keep the conversation about slaughter going.

The same goes for Mike Repole, through his team's ongoing efforts to establish a sustainably funded and comprehensive network of accredited aftercare facilities nationwide, along with a system of incentives to drive demand for retired racers.

“It's without question that huge strides have been made to reduce the number of horses sent abroad for slaughter–down nearly 90% in the last decade, and even higher over the last three decades. But we all know the number needs to be zero and it isn't that now,” said Pat Cummings, executive director of the Repole-founded National Thoroughbred Alliance.

“A small number of Thoroughbreds still end up at kill pens, and I think you can reasonably surmise that while tremendous strides have been made in our greater aftercare efforts over the last 20 years, there is still so much more to be done,” said Cummings, who added how passage of the SAFE Act should help expedite that process. “It's beyond time to move this forward.”