ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - A U.S. District Judge granted a temporary restraining order on Friday, halting horse slaughter on American soil. The decision means Valley Meat Company will not be able to open its southeast New Mexico slaughterhouse as planned today.

Laura Bonar, program director, Animal Protection of New Mexico, said she was pleased.

"This prevents commercial horse slaughter in New Mexico, but also prevents it all across the United States. And there is another plant in Iowa that has stated that they were ready to start slaughtering horses. The temporary restraining order enjoins the federal government from dispatching inspectors to the horse slaughter plants and enjoins commercial horse slaughter," Bonar said.

The restraining order was sought by the Humane Society, Front Range Equine Rescue, the newly-formed Foundation to Protect New Mexico Wildlife, and others. They acknowledge that the fight isn't over, and another hearing on the matter will soon be scheduled. The groups say their goal is an all-out federal ban on horse slaughter.

Kate Ferlic, an attorney at Egolf Ferlic & Day LLC, represents the Foundation to Protect New Mexico Wildlife. She said the case addresses three primary issues. First is the failure to conduct an environmental impact statement; second is food safety.

"This horse meat would be for export," Ferlic explained, and the drugs found in the horse meat are not tested or proven safe for human consumption. Also, the inability of the plant to trace the meat directly to a horse producer is problematic, particularly in Europe, where they require specific tracking of food sources."

And then there is the cruelty of slaughter. In the lawsuit, Ferlic contended there is no humane way to slaughter horses.

Bonar said one of the things Judge Christina Armijo discussed Friday was the balance of harm. Armijo said she recognized that both defendants, Valley Meat Company in Roswell and Responsible Transportation in Iowa, would suffer significant financial impact from a restraining order.

"The judge talked about past commercial horse-slaughter plants in the United States and the documented blood spills, improper disposal of animal parts and leaching of effluent into the ground. That's why she was granting the temporary restraining order," Bonar explained.




get more stories like this via email

Government labels on meat products that say "humane" or "raised in a stress-free environment" are meaningless, according to some animal-rights groups, because the feds don't verify the companies' practices on the ground.

The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, has just submitted a petition calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service to stop approving labels that PETA calls "grossly misleading."

Jared Goodman is the general counsel for animal law at the PETA Foundation.

"The government is enabling companies to exploit consumers' willingness to pay more for products that are made from animals who are supposedly raised humanely," said Goodman, "but in reality, suffer in many of the exact same ways as those who are raised pursuant to regular industry standards."

The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

PETA says its investigations show some companies with the "humane" label - even some that advertise themselves as "cage free" - still mutilate the beaks of poultry, crush male chicks while they are still conscious, and keep animals in crowded sheds with little light or room to roam.

The nonprofit Humane Farm Animal Care has created a "Certified Humane Program" that evaluates producers on standards of care in raising and slaughtering animals. But Goodman pointed out that third-party programs are merely voluntary.

He said he thinks the feds should not approve "humane" labels, since companies have a strong financial incentive to misrepresent the ways they treat animals.

"They don't consider animal welfare a priority," said Goodman, "and are not going to invest the resources that are needed to provide these animals with adequate care before they're ultimately sent to the same slaughterhouses that kill animals from factory farms."

There are no federal anti-animal cruelty laws, but states will investigate when complaints are filed.

PETA claims that adopting a vegan diet is the only way to be sure your meals are cruelty-free.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it is considering a ban on lead ammunition on several national wildlife refuges, a move some wildlife advocates want to see replicated at the state level in Wisconsin.

Mark Naniot, director of wildlife rehabilitation for Rhinelander-based Wild Instincts, explained lead ammunition fractures into small particles when fired into an animal, which means lead-contaminated meat can then be consumed by hunters and scavengers.

"They ingest these tiny little lead particles, and all it takes is one or two almost microscopic particles to cause lead poisoning," Naniot noted.

Naniot explained Wisconsin's Conservation Congress, which acts as an advisory committee to the Department of Natural Resources, has voted on lead ammunition regulations in the past, although it has never approved such policies.

While there's no current ban, the Department of Natural Resources recommends against using lead-based ammunition and angling gear, citing concerns over lead poisoning.

Many hunters have embraced lead-free ammunition, but some counter it is more expensive than lead-based ammunition and less widely available. Naniot acknowledged the cost for a box of lead-free ammunition can be $10-$20 more, but argued it can take hunters years to go through a single box of ammunition.

"There's 20 shells in a box," Naniot pointed out. "And most people will shoot maybe one or two at a deer, maybe shoot a couple to make sure their gun is sighted in. So, you're shooting two or three [shells] a year. Well, that box is maybe going to last you maybe four or five years."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is accepting public comment on the proposed lead-ammunition ban until August 8. The rule would open up 19 federally-managed refuges to hunting, with the trade-off being lead ammunition would be banned on those lands. None of the refuges are located in Wisconsin.

A new study aims to reduce wildlife collisions in one of the biggest hotspots for them - Highway 395 from Reno, Nevada, through Tahoe up to Susanville.

The nonprofit Wildlands Network worked with specialists at Pathways for Wildlife to place about 40 cameras on the route - to see where animals are trying to cross and where specialized fencing is needed to direct them to culverts or a wildlife overpass.

Mari Galloway, California program manager with Wildlands Network, said the road cuts off the migration pattern for many different species.

"The mule deer, coyotes, pronghorn, elk, black bears, mountain lions," said Galloway. "American badgers, grey fox and long-tailed weasels occupy the area as well."

Many species overwinter in the lower elevations near Reno and migrate to the Sierra Nevadas in the summer in search of food, mates and new territory for the juveniles.

According to the University of California, Davis Roadkill Ecology Center, from 2016 to 2021 there were almost 350 large wildlife collisions - mostly mule deer - on a 60-mile stretch of Highway 395, doing more than $6 million in damage.

Tanya Diamond, co-owner and wildlife ecologist at Pathways for Wildlife, said the year-long study will identify existing passageways and fencing that could be improved or repaired, and the best place for a new wildlife overpass.

"In 15 years of study, I don't think I've ever encountered a highway that needed this much extensive help," said Diamond. "This is such an important area with the deer migrating like that."

The work builds on efforts from CalTrans and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and their counterparts in Nevada. Actual construction of new culverts or overpasses is a few years off, once environmental studies are complete.