Each year we winter a few dozen horses on our ranch. A good neighbor arranges this with his friends who have horses but lack winter pasture and want to avoid the cost and bother of feeding hay. The horses have good, inexpensive feed for six months. We derive modest income while our rangeland benefits from having dead grass removed and seeds scattered. In addition, we enjoy watching a band of horses come down to our east meadow for daily water. Each year we take photos and I enjoy selecting a few for the ranch website.

Horses arrive in early November and many return each year. They seem to remember one another and perhaps communicate. They wander around sniffing, huffing, snorting, and whinnying, it’s as though they’re asking: “What fun did you have last summer?”

Alas, not all horses in the U.S. are having fun and their plight will surely worsen if feed prices remain high. Economics helps us understand how good intentions can run amuck and lead to sorry outcomes.

Culture is the beliefs, values, customs, and practices of a people. Culture guides behavior. America has a cultural inhibition toward eating horsemeat. However, Europeans don’t share this food taboo and provide a market for horses as food. I find this mildly disgusting, but not unethical if horses are humanely killed.

America had three slaughterhouses that among them killed approximately 85,000 horses per year. They sent carcasses to Europe. A recent law closed these facilities and horses are now sent to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.

Some Americans of good will find this horse market offensive and want to prohibit it. On June 5th, the National Horse Protection League ran a full-page ad in the New York Times supporting legislation that amends the Horse Protection Act “to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.”

Ecologists and economists might share the sentiment motivating this proposed legislation. Both, however, should ask, “And then what? What predictable consequences may follow a prohibition on horse slaughterhouses?”

The ecologist will note that it’s hard to do just one thing; second order consequences surely will follow. Economists observe the dramatically increased price of hay and predict that some folks will find other ways to get rid of their horses. The more feed costs, the more go. Concurrently, the price for horses will fall.

Substitute gas for hay and the same holds for large SUVs and pickups. In both cases the fundamental economic principle reins: when cost rises, demand is reduced. This is the social analogue of the law of gravity, true across time and cultures.

Here’s the key result: a growing number of unwanted horses are being starved or turned loose to fend for themselves. Dr. Larry Bramlage of the American Association of Equine Practitioners opposes the proposed legislation. Slaughterhouses provide an option for unwanted horses. Temple Grandin of Colorado State University noted: “What concerns me is a fate worse than slaughter. We've got people turning horses loose in fields, dropping horses off in the night—my worst nightmares are coming true.”

The manager of an animal shelter observed, “People just don't have the cash. They can't afford to feed their families, let alone their horses.” Most horses don't make it to shelters but, according to the Arizona Department of Agriculture, are simply turned loose on public lands.

The alternatives to humane slaughter are grim, unethical, and indeed despicable, though understandable. This is not because people suddenly dislike their horses. Rather, it’s due primarily to increased feed costs. The price of hay has doubled or tripled nationwide.

I recently got rid of an old Suburban and shed no tear. Losing only money, I faced no ethical dilemma. In contrast, well-intended legislation prohibiting horse slaughter produces much grief and suffering. Just as low MPG pickups and SUVs are dumped, so are horses.

If you support a reform, always ask, “And then what?” This applies not only to animal welfare, but also in every arena of public policy including health care, labor, and energy. It’s only horse sense to do so.