NOTE: Dr. Liskey, former board member of the California Equine Council, a HoofPAC member, wrote this letter which was mailed to every AAEP member across the nation in 2000 and is even more relevant today.

At the bottom of this letter, please note the AAEP response given to a fellow equine practitioner/surgeon regarding the renting of their mailing list. Obviously to hold these opinions within the AAEP is considered heresy.

Year 2000

Dear Equine Practitioner,

I recently attended the Equine Welfare Forum in Albuquerque cosponsored by the AVMA and the AAEP. This letter has been generated from numerous hours of discussion with AVMA (Drs. Gail Golab/David Granstrom/Dean Goeldner), AAEP (Dr. Reece), APHIS (Tim Cordes), American Humane Association (Adele Douglas), American Horse Council (James Hickey, Dr. Jerry Black), animal welfare specialists, animal welfare groups, numerous equine practitioners and my own equine clients.

Initially, it became painfully clear to me that most of the speakers atthis forum represented industry views on each topic. The welfare of the horse seemed secondary to the security of each group. If a point could be proven scientifically then it was okay no matter what common sense told the listener. As I drove home to California the AAEP slogan for the seminar "WHO SPEAKS FOR THE HORSE?", kept ringing in my ears. Fortunately, Eric Davis, the recipient of the AVMA equine welfare award summed up my sentiment concerning equine welfare. He stated that we need to treat each and every horse with compassion.

I spoke with many people who considered the fact that the AVMA/AAEP sponsored an equine welfare forum a positive step. I personally wonder if this is true. In l992, in San Antonio, I asked the AAEP animal welfare committee for their support in passing a bill in California against the cruel practice of horse tripping in the Mexican rodeos. I quickly learned the AAEP was NOT going to support efforts to stop this cruel practice. I left the meeting stunned and ashamed for an organization whose mission statement proclaims concern for the welfare of the horse. This obvious cruelty issue was a hot potato for the organization. Undeterred, the California Equine Council, CVMA and other groups truly motivated by compassion for the horse successfully lobbied the California legislature and AB49X was signed into law prohibiting the tripping of horses for sport or entertainment.

Seven years have passed. In l992 this group was undecided on horse tripping. In l999 they are endorsing factory PMU farming, foal genocide and the inhumane transport of equines. These words may seem harsh but they need to be said. I am sure the leadership of the AAEP will deny this. I hope the individual members will take a close look at the endorse/support political position their leadership has taken on these issues.

I am sure the vast majority of equine veterinarians are filled with compassion for the horse. On a daily basis equine veterinarians provide compassionate care for horses. However, the AAEP is doing a poor job with political issues involving equine welfare. The AAEP was formed in the 1960's when a few practitioners became worried about the public perception of the profession after some problems within the horse racing industry.

Today, I am deeply concerned about the public perception of equine veterinarians involved in equine welfare issues. In fact, when I discussed some of these issues with my clients, I was stunned to hear the clients say that they did not trust equine veterinarians with equine welfare issues! A veterinarian from the AAEP welfare board summed it up very concisely after the slaughter horse seminar. He volunteered that he wished the AAEP would not take positions other than to give the horse the best medical care possible when called. That is good advice based on the AAEP's current position. However, the reality is that the AAEP/AVMA will be called often to offer political opinions on future equine welfare issues. These organizations cannot be reluctantly involved. Equine welfare issues are not going away.

Unfortunately, the AVMA is no better on equine issues since they rely heavily on the AAEP for advice. Both organizations need to take positions that represent the welfare of the horse, not the welfare of the industry. The public is watching.

For example, recent polls conducted in California and New York clearly show that the public rejects the slaughter of horses. There are models available that bring diverse groups together creating positive equine welfare results. In California equine welfare groups have successfully lobbied the legislature on important issues such as horse tripping, humane transportation and horse slaughter.

I will give you an example of the problem. The AVMA/AAEP were asked to comment on pending federal regulations for the commercial transport of horses to slaughter. This was a great opportunity for the veterinarian to make a large difference in a previously unregulated industry. An obvious first step would a simple "fit to travel" inspection by a veterinarian prior to transport. Severely foundered horses, horses with fractured limbs, impending foaling, obvious blind horses could be stopped from being shipped. This seems reasonable; however, the AAEP opposed this suggestion. I will let their leadership explain this position. I am sure they think they have a perfectly suitable response.

The AAEP/AVMA also would not stand up and reject the use of the double decked cattle trucks. Instead they are, passively allowing these trucks to be used for 5 more years. Both organizations also supported transport of horses for 28-34 hours without water. These regulations would allow the slaughter industry to continue its cruel methods with impunity. Cruelty will be regulated into law. The horses get nothing. Business as usual.

Do you want to know who supports these purposed regulations? Here is a list of the supporters. California Cattleman's Association, Beltex Corp. (horse slaughter plant), Central Nebraska Packing Inc. (horse slaughter plant), Dallas Crown Inc. (horse slaughter plant), American Horse Council, American Meat Institute, AVMA and AAEP. These regulations are opposed by all humane organizations and all humane horse organizations. This is how our veterinary organizations work for the welfare of the horse!!! Who DOES speak for the horse??

I was also very disappointed with all the talk about science based decision making. This phrase most certainly came from a focus group. It now appears to have been scientifically proven that pregnant mares can be tethered for five and one half months during gestation in tie stalls with no more than five gallons of water per day with no exercise. TRY SELLING THAT ONE TO OUR CLIENTS WITH PREGNANT MARES. A REAL PRACTICE BUILDER! DO NOT FORGET TO MENTION 80% OF THE FOALS HAVE TO BE SLAUGHTERED! Better yet, it is now scientifically permissible that horses can be transported for 28-34 hours without water in 5'7" - 5'9" height vehicles. Is this decent? Is this humane? Would you haul your horse under these circumstances?

Mark Twain said, "There are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics." Statistically speaking bumble bees cannot fly! The age old battle between empirical thinking Vs intuitive thinking. How do you define compassion scientifically? Would slavery still exist if scientists had measured the cortisol levels of African Americans in the l800's? Be careful, be very careful. Those same scientific parameters that make it okay to treat slaughter horses inhumanely may be used to end rodeo or horse racing.

Finally, at the end of the welfare forum, I watched a well known researcher grovel for funding. This disturbed me. A hungry researcher can be played like a violin. Remember the tobacco industry had paid for and scientifically proven that smoking was not addictive.

All of the USDA studies! For what reason? I can pick up any existing reference book and find that horses should not be given water less than twice daily. And millions of dollars have already been spent setting the current standards of 6'6" - 7' height for commercial equine vehicles today. Vehicles which were designed, manufactured and safety tested on roads for horses. As an equine veterinarian I refuse to cater to the lowest denominator for equine husbandry standards. I do not care what the USDA studies show. I started in this profession with a love for the animal and a desire to promote wellness and to establish the standards of humane care to its highest level. To hell with these studies.

Currently, horse slaughter is an ongoing industry. Many people feel it is unrealistic to believe it will go away. However, I hope for a different outcome. Within the past five years the number of horses that were slaughtered has declined significantly and horse slaughter plants are dwindling in numbers in the United States. Veterinarians should educate horse owners on needless breeding and the result of over population. Euthanasia should be discussed openly and offered as an alternative to shipping the horse to slaughter. A great challenge to future equine veterinarians should be to make slaughter of the horse at the very least an exception.

I have hope for a future where there will be no need for animal welfare forums, or at least where forums are truly dedicated to the actual welfare of the animal, and there is no need for defensive presentations.

During the welfare forum many speakers used quotations from well known people to bring a point to the attention of the audience. Einstein, Schweitzer and Ghandi have all spoken out for kindness and compassion for animals. For me as I listened I think Professor Bernie Rollins summed it cruelty?" "Is it necessary?" and "Is there a humane alternative?" These are brilliant words, simply brilliant! If everyone would take the time to think about the answers to these questions when involved with animals then cruelty would nearly be eliminated.

Please, I urge you to get involved. Find out the truth. Listen carefully, ask questions. Dig deeply through all the rhetoric.

Sincerely,

Charles Liskey D.V.M.

Dr. Charles Liskey
Ventura County Equine
601 E. Daily Dr., Suite 114
Camarillo, CA 93010

Dear Dr. Liskey,

I regret to inform you that you do not have permission to use the AVMA mailing list. The policy governing the approved use of the AVMA mailing list states that the list will not be made available for use in connection with the dissemination of materials which AVMA characterizes as inappropriate, offensive, or represents attacks on or attempts to demean veterinary societies.

Sincerely,

Karen M. Wernette, DVM
Associate Director
Membership and Field Services

KMW