Friday, August 22, 2008

Dr. Boyd ReButts ProSlaughter Crap

This (USA Today) article fuels rampant misconceptions about the horse slaughter industry, whose practices are inhumane, heartless and frankly, revolting. Let’s be clear, the horse slaughter industry exists out of greed and those advocating horse slaughter could care less about horse welfare.

As a farmer, and the President of the National Black Farmers Association, I feel strongly about responding and correcting the record on this issue. It goes without saying that horses have played a long and important role in our history – from tilling the land, to being out pets and companions.

Those advocating horse slaughter are using the abandonment issue to divert attention from the real issue, which is appalling to a vast majority of Americans.

Even if horses were being abandoned, that has nothing to do with slaughter. We should go after those abusing animals, not reward them. The notion that horse slaughter staves off a glut of unwanted horses, or that horses brought to slaughter are old, sick, crippled or dangerous couldn’t be further from the truth. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, 92 percent of the horses slaughtered each year are sound, usable horses.

Horse abuse and neglect cases will not rise following a ban on horse slaughter. Since California’s 1998 ban of horse slaughter, abuse cases in California have not risen and have even declined in some areas. Horse theft also dropped by more than 34 percent.

The biggest misstep in your piece was the question, “How can we humanely lessen their numbers?” The exportation and slaughter of American horses is anything but humane. To support such an industry and practice is to support the brutal killing of these animals — longtime members of our families as loved pets and valued farm hands.

Slaughter is NOT humane euthanasia. In some cases, the execution method involves activities outlawed in the United States, such as shooting or stabbing. Horses often travel 24 hours or more without rest, food or water in cramped double-decker trailers. These trailers are built for shorter animals such as cattle and pigs; most horses cannot fully lift their heads. Horses often slip and fall in these trailers, arriving at the plants dead or severely crippled.

There are hundreds of horse rescue organizations across the country that have volunteered to care for these horses in the interest of removing them from the slaughter line. In fact, in June of this year, the Animal Welfare and the National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) formed a partnership to place rescued horses on farms operated by NBFA’s 94,000 members.

While some continue to suggest that slaughter is the only option, the success of this program, and the lives of the saved, tell a vastly different story.

Dr. John Boyd
President of the National Black Farmers Association

Thursday, August 21, 2008

JC Roundtable 56th Annual / Report

Click title (above) to read full report.

Priccis' Report of the RoundTable Meeting

Jockey Club Lacks Needed Sense of Urgency
John Pricci, Horserace Insider
Wednesday, August 20, 2008


Saratoga Springs, NY, August 19, 2008--I’m not as smart as I think but smart enough to know this much: Might doesn’t only not make right but it doesn’t necessarily make smart either.

Making recommendations is no guarantor of making progress, or that the recommendations will solve a problem any better than it treats a symptom. Which brings us to Sunday’s Jockey Club Round Table on Matters Pertaining to Racing, a Saratoga tradition since 1954.

The annual gathering is not really a round table at all. By definition, people sitting around a circular table means that all participants are created equal and that actual dialogue might be taking place. I was not in attendance, but I found the substance of the Round Table meeting at http://www.jockeyclub.com/tsc.asp.


Photo by: Toni Pricci
Dinny Phipps is a man who insists on hearing bad news immediately
Indeed, if there were, literally, a Jockey Club table, it would be anything but round. Ogden Mills (Dinny) Phipps is clearly the poohbah de tutti poohbah, standing at a podium and introducing hand-picked speakers to enlighten the august body, the details of which eventually trickle down to the rest of us who may be lost in a sea of mutuel tickets.

While no one questions the motives of the organization that has as its mission “the improvement of Thoroughbred breeding and racing,” Sunday’s exercise called for more R & D when one would have thought that by now, with Congress lurking since June, racing’s leaders would be farther along in the process.


None of the recommendations were bad ideas. Quite the contrary. It’s just seems a tad late in the game to first develop a business plan for the most efficient and cost-effective infrastructure for equine drug testing and research; the development of testing laboratory standards; development of a request for proposals requiring adherence to standards established by the state racing commissions and, finally, the development and maintenance of a facility to store frozen samples for future analysis.

Drug testing is currently being done by 18 laboratories throughout the United States, the other issue being that drug rules differ in the 38 jurisdictions those labs monitor. It’s a huge, complicated issue.

With the benefit of hindsight, it’s too bad it had to take the running of the 2008 Kentucky Derby to get this ball rolling.

Among other recommendations made were the immediate adoption and implementation by all racing commissions of the RCI Model Rule on Uniform Classification Guidelines and Penalties that apply to trainers, veterinarians and owners, its implementation to be adopted no later than by the end of the year.

As it specifically regards “milkshaking”--a performance-enhancing practice via the use of alkalinizing agents--the committee calls for the overall prohibition of the use of all alkalinizing substances, as recommended under the auspices of Racing Commissioners International, calling for its implementation by requesting that Thoroughbred Tracks in North America “consider implementation… by ‘house rule’.”

Other suggestions are that racing associations, training facilities and individual licensees participate in a commission-approved injury reporting database, whereby interested parties collaborate on the development of standardized protocols and procedures for pre-race, post-race and post mortem exams.

According to the Jockey Club website, Stuart S. Janney III, chairman of the Thoroughbred Safety Committee, said that “medication issues continue to haunt this industry and they are and will continue to be a priority for this committee as evidenced by several of today’s recommendations. We once again vigorously encourage the respective industry organizations to act on these recommendations in a timely manner.”

To its credit, the Jockey Club has launched a dedicated section containing all Safety Committee recommendations and resulting actions on its home page at http://www.jockeyclub.com, and a transcript of the conference is now available.

In addition to recommendations, several speakers presented the results of studies challenging criticisms of the racing industry since the Eight Belles tragedy. Matt Iuliano, Vice President of Jockey Club registration services, challenged claims that modern practices have weakened the breed.

Iuliano said that pedigree research conducted by the Jockey Club appeared to reveal that no one sire line is responsible for producing horses with a higher degree of unsoundness, and that essentially there was no increase in unsoundness leading to the decline of field size in the last 47 years from more than 11 horses to just over 6.

Dr. Larry Bramlage, a familiar figure to Triple Crown and Breeders’ Cup viewers, challenged the notion that two-year-old racing contributes to unsoundness or catastrophic injury. Bramlage presented data indicating that horses which race at 2 run more often with more average earnings per start than horses debuting at 3.

How are racing’s customers supposed to perceive this, as progress, or statistical spin? How will Congress respond to the “progress” this represents? Legislators already are at work on a bill certain to rock industry. But what can racing do when Congress holds simulcasting hostage? No simulcasting; no game.

Isn’t the recommendation to adopt RCI Model Rules old news? Wasn’t milkshaking dealt with definitively years ago? Don’t hear much about milkshaking these days. My fault, or the fault of an industry not known for its transparency?

And so the organization whose charter it is to improve thoroughbred racing and breeding is asking the tracks to consider implementation of their recommendations by house rule. “Consider?” It further wants implementation of a commission-approved injury reporting database using standardized protocols. And this is new news, too? Mary Scollay, D.V.M., has wanted to do this for years. How overdue is it? Ten years, fifty?

The “medication issue continues to haunt the industry and will continue to be a priority as evidenced by several of today’s recommendations,” said Janney. But nary a mention of permissive medications: Butazolidin, an analgesic that allows horses to compete while “racing sound”; Lasix, the granddaddy of masking agents.

Clearly, horses need therapeutic and/or prophylactic treatment. They just don’t need it on race day. But there were no mentions of moving current withdrawal periods or-- heaven forbid someday--a possible return to hay, oats, and two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen.

The fact that no one sire is responsible for the spate of recent breakdowns ignores all empirical knowledge. Just as speed horses beget speed horses and turf horses beget grass runners and even as certain sires transmit track-specific aptitudes to their offspring, so, too, does inherently unsound horses produce runners with a predisposition to unsoundness.

In the sales marketplace, as everyone knows, talented, accomplished runners are retired prematurely. But somehow we must believe that the owners of Raise a Native and Danzig, to name two phenomenally pre-potent studs, wanted to retire those amazing speed merchants to the breeding shed after only a handful of starts?

Of course, research will show horses that race at 2 earned more money on average than horses debuting at 3. Well, not only is there a ton of purse money available to modern-day juveniles but debuting three-year-olds are horses that, whatever the reason, can't make a start at 2.

If horses could race at 2, they would. Late developers lacking juvenile foundation and seasoning are left behind the developmental curve at 3, hence the lower earnings. It’s the same principle that makes the yearlings which are allowed to romp in their paddocks--as opposed to hot-house sales types--better two-year-olds. It was a specious argument, unworthy of those who would improve the breed.



Christine A Jubic says:

21 Aug 2008 at 08:21 am | #

John,,

I was just wondering if there was any mention at the Roundtable Meeting of the one-woman protester standing outside the hotel with her signs saying how “The Dorf” makes “The Horseracing Hall of Shame” by running a foundered horse (Heavenly Perfect) and then selling her off to slaughter? If you didnt hear about it there, I guess they are trying to cover it up, but you can read all about it here;

http://www.freewebs.com/horseracinghallofshame/dorfmakeshallofshame.htm

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

More Pro-Slaughter Crap from the AQHA

More Pro-Slaughter Crap from the AQHA

http://quarterhorsenews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3676&Itemid=92<http://quarterhorsenews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3676&Itemid=92

Companion Horse Update Written by Sheri Forrest:

The passing of HR 503, which enacted a ban on horse slaughter in the United States, has further fueled efforts to have horses legally reclassified as companion animals, instead of livestock. The reported reasons for the proposed change include the belief that it would further prevent the use of horses for human consumption and the opinion that horses are akin in their relationship to humans to other domesticated animals such as dogs and cats.

Both the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are organizations behind this effort.Livestock, by definition, are animals kept or raised for use or pleasure. Horses have, traditionally and legally, long been considered livestock in the United States, since they are raised and kept on a farm or ranch and are often used in commercial enterprises.

According to American Horse Council statistics, the horse industry represents a major U.S. agri-business that makes a significant contribution to the economic well-being of the entire country. The industry has a $112-billion impact on the U.S. economy, generates 1,404,400 full-time equivalent jobs, and pays $1.9 billion in taxes to all levels of government.RamificationsChanging the legal status of horses to companion animals could, in fact, have several potentially negative ramifications to the horse industry. These include risks to federal and state funding of the tracking and containment of equine diseases, certain tax classifications, equine limited-liability laws, anti-cruelty laws, state and local zoning ordinances and the availability of emergency disaster relief funds.

The American Horse Council (AHC), the voice of the horse industry in Washington, D.C., was joined by the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) in addressing these ramifications in a joint statement issued in response to the effort to reclassify horses. Basically, their findings outlined the following points:State and federal funding - Changing the livestock status of horses means the possible loss of financial support from the United States Department of Agriculture and state Departments of Agriculture for research, regulation and disaster relief.On the national level, the care and regulation of horses and horse-related activities come under the purview of the United States Department of Agriculture. The USDA provides technical expertise and monetary support for such things as: research into the prevention of equine diseases like West Nile virus, equine viral arteritis (EVA), vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis (VEE) and contagious equine metritis (CEM); enforcement of the Horse Protection Act; and the development and enforcement of the Safe Commercial Transportation of Equine to Slaughter Act.On the state level, each state's Department of Agriculture is usually charged with the regulation of horse-related activities. Like the USDA, many state Departments of Agriculture assist the horse industry through research and regulatory programs. Tax issues - Under current federal tax law, commercial horse owners and breeders are treated as farmers. This classification has tax ramifications that could change if horses are not considered livestock. Horse owners and breeders could also lose the advantages of state excise and sales taxes laws that consider horses to be livestock. If horses are no longer livestock, horse breeding will no longer be an agricultural endeavor and federal and state taxes for horse operations could increase.Limited-liability laws - Many states have passed limited-liability laws - one purpose of which is to protect stable owners, equine event sponsors and other industry organizers from lawsuits arising if an individual is injured while attending or participating in such an event.

Those involved in the horse industry realize the horse is a potentially dangerous animal and are aware of the risks when dealing with horses. Many of the state limited-liability laws pertain not just to horses, but encompass all livestock or farm animals including horses. If horses are no longer considered livestock, a law that so many horse people worked so hard to pass may no longer protect them.Humane laws - All 50 states have animal anti-cruelty laws. Some laws are written specifically for livestock, others are written specifically for non-livestock. Livestock anti-cruelty laws are usually written to ensure that these animals receive the humane treatment and care they deserve, while still providing for the use of the animal. If horses are legally considered non-livestock, livestock anti-cruelty laws will no longer apply, putting at risk the provision for the "use" of horses in various activities and competitions.Local and state zoning laws - The livestock designation also allows for state and federal funds to be applied to the horse industry, providing show areas and public horse facilities. Zoning approvals and consideration of livestock events fall under agricultural zoning laws. If horses are no longer considered livestock, and therefore no longer governed under ag-zoning laws, the zoning of horse-related events may be subject to non-agricultural activity zoning requirements.Livestock benefitsJay Hickey, president of the AHC, emphasizes that the current classification of horses as livestock has several benefits to horse owners. "With this current classification, people have the option to treat their horses as livestock, pets or companion animals," he stated. "It is their prerogative. If this changes and horses become legally classified as companion animals, it would have a great financial effect on the horse industry."Also, according to Hickey, the AHC has been working for some time to achieve parity for horse breeders with other livestock producers. The AHC strongly supports the disaster relief provisions in the newly approved Farm Bill. On May 22, 2008, Congress overrode Presidents Bush's veto of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (commonly known as the Farm Bill) and enacted it into law. Hickey states that the Farm Bill includes two significant provisions beneficial to horse breeders that absolutely hinge on horses being classified as livestock. The new law makes "equine farmers and ranchers" eligible (for the first time in history) for emergency loans following a disaster by specifically including them within the group of producers eligible for these low-interest loans. The Farm Bill also includes a new disaster assistance program that will provide relief funds to farmers and ranchers who suffer losses because of disaster. Horses are specifically included within the definition of livestock eligible for these relief programs. Should horses be reclassified as companion animals, this type of federal and state financial support would cease to exist for horse owners.Tom Persechino, senior director of marketing for the American Quarter Horse Association, echoes Hickey's sentiments. "AQHA strongly opposes any effort to reclassify horses as companion animals," Persechino said. "We have worked diligently with Congress to ensure that horses continue to be classified as livestock. One significant reason for this is to make sure horse owners are eligible for government monies just as farmers are in the event of disaster relief, such as the flood situation in Iowa and the fires in California. We also want to protect the horse industry with respect to tax issues. We strongly encourage our members to actively oppose this effort."And, yes, the argument surrounding the legal classification of horses circles back to the realm of the horse slaughter issue, wherein it refers to unwanted animals. Even if horses' classification were changed to that of a companion animal, it would likely be difficult to deal with them as we do dogs and cats. Currently, unwanted cats or dogs are euthanized by the owner's veterinarian, turned loose to fend for themselves or surrendered to shelters (where millions are euthanized annually). It is a fact that horse owners can opt for euthanizing unwanted horses at the expense of the procedure and disposal of the carcass. But, it is highly unlikely that a horse would be turned loose to fend for itself; and there is nothing equivalent to an animal shelter that exists for unwanted horses, where they could be euthanized (and the carcasses disposed of at public expense).All in all, it would serve horse owners well to closely monitor the effort to reclassify horses as companion animals and to voice their opinions to their local, state and federal officials, as its outcome could, indeed, be far-reaching.

Reach Sheri Forrest sheri927@aol.com

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Genuine Risk Dies @ 31 After Successful Retirement

The way it is supposed to be:

Former Kentucky Derby winner Genuine Risk dies

By Mark Lamport-Stokes Mon Aug 18, 4:42 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Former Kentucky Derby winner Genuine Risk, the only filly to finish in the top three in all three U.S. Triple Crown races, died on Monday aged 31.

"She had not been suffering from any previous illness and simply died peacefully of old age," farm official Eric Connolly told Reuters in a telephone interview after Genuine Risk died at Newstead Farm in Upperville, Virginia.
In 1980 she became only the second filly to win the Kentucky Derby. Ridden by Jacinto Vasquez, she also finished second in that year's Preakness and Belmont Stakes.

Genuine Risk was inducted into the U.S. Racing Hall of Fame in 1986 and listed among the 'Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century' by Blood-Horse magazine.
The filly was retired in 1981.

Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080818/us_nm/horse_racing_risk_dc;_ylt=AmZzdehv1I0FQGlvgiyJlvVH2ocA

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Pro-Slaughter Crap from Across the Pond

Fears over US horse export for slaughter ban

Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:08 pm (PDT)

From the UK - Horse and Hound:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/265642.htmlhttp://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/265642.html

Fears over United States' horse export for slaughter banH&H news desk17 August, 2008US welfare organisations are warning of impending disaster for unwanted horses if new legislation banning horse export for human consumption becomes law.Politicians are considering the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, that would ban the domestic or international sale, delivery or receipt of live horses for human consumption. Supporters want to halt the increasing number of horses being shipped to Mexico or Canada for slaughter, after the closure of the three remaining Belgian-owned abatoirs in the US in 2007.

Welfare groups argue that a ban will eliminate a necessary end-of-life option for thousands of unwanted horses. "Proponents of this legislation have done nothing to address the real issue [of unwanted horses]," said Dr Mark Lutschaunig of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). He said the closure of US slaughterhouses had already made matters "significantly worse" for horse welfare. A spokesman for the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) told H&H: "Unwanted horses in the US are facing a crisis. The AAEP believes the option of sending a horse to a processing plant is the best way of reducing the unwanted horse population. The bill doesn't address the long-term care and funding that would be necessary to help the many horses affected by a ban."

UK charity World Horse Welfare was set up to put a stop to the transport of horses for slaughter, and head of campaigns Emma Cook said that the US bill has massive welfare implications. "Carcass disposal is expensive and people aren't always going to make the right decision," she said. "Sometimes, it can be better for a horse to end up on a dinner plate than to be hobbling around for five years."

However, there are reported to be over 500 organisations in the US — such as the Society for Animal Protective Legislation — that support the abolition of horse slaughter. The last three American slaughterhouses — two in Texas and one in Illinois — dispatched 100,000 horses a year, mainly for export to France and Japan. Now, the number of horses transported to Mexico for slaughter has rocketed by 300 per cent — in December 2007, 44,475 horses were exported to Mexico, compared with 10,783 the previous December. US experts also believe horses are being exported to Mexico on the pretence of breeding or recreation — but end up in the slaughterhouse. __._,

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Enough is Enough Already!

Enough is enough

Posted by: "John Holland" hollandtech@earthlink.net hollandtechserv

Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:57 pm (PDT)

Hi Folks,The USA Today has repeatedly published pro-slaughter articles without regard for the truth. I know that they are aware of the truth because I am one of several people who have spoken directly with their writers who were preparing articles. They have ignored the facts. Enough is enough. Now we are going to teach them a little lesson about the internet and google. We are going to put this message out from every web site we can reach. Spread the word.... This article isn't ok. They aren't looking for facts and that to me is total BS! It is very important that we let them know they need a retraction.Do you have a website or a blog? Put the information below on your site and ask everyone else to do the same and also contact them with your disappointment in their article.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/08/homeless-on-the.html

"If you can't trust the USA Today on this issue, can you trust them on any issue?" A boycott is in order until they start printing factual information! Please let them know this is not ok! You can leave a comment - and please do! Thanks!John