NTRA Withdraws Support of Anti-Horse Slaughter Bill

WALDROP’S WAFFLE
By Ray Paulick

National Thoroughbred Racing Association CEO Alex Waldrop said his organization neither opposes nor supports a U.S. House of Representatives bill that would criminalize transportation of horses with the intention they be slaughtered for human consumption. A letter from Waldrop expressing the NTRA’s neutrality was entered into the record on Wednesday by Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) during a markup hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on H.B. 6598, known as the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008.

The bill, introduced in July, is sponsored by Democratic Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers of Michigan and 11 other House members.

In his letter to Congress, Waldrop said the NTRA supported 2003 anti-slaughter legislation, which failed to pass. He did not reference support or opposition to current legislation before the House (H.B. 103) and Senate (S.B. 311) that would prohibit slaughter and transportation to slaughter plants.

Those bills will prohibit slaughter, while H.R. 6598 criminalizes transportation of horses to slaughter plants for human consumption by amending federal criminal law and calling for fines and imprisonment. There currently are no slaughter plants operating in the U.S., the two in Texas having been shut down by a court ruling and a plant in Illinois shuttered after a state law was passed. There has been an increase in the number of horses being transported across the borders into Canada and Mexico, however, and this law provides enforcement for federal officials to end that. Horses confiscated would be under the jusisdiction of the attorney general, who, according to the bill, “shall provide for the humane placement or other humane disposition of any horse seized.”
Waldrop’s difficulty in supporting or opposing the bill stems from the makeup of the NTRA membership, which is funded in part by organizations such as the American Quarter Horse Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners, which have opposed anti-slaughter legislation.

Passage of the bills seems a longshot with time running out during the current session of Congress.

Following is the text of Waldrop’s letter, citing the NTRA’s neutrality and concerns with the bill:

Dear Representative:

It has come to my attention that the House Judiciary Committee plans to mark up H.R. 6598, the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008. As you may know, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA) has previously supported another bill to ban the slaughter of horses, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (H.R. 857), introduced in 2003.

We are now examining H.R. 6598, but have reached no decision as to whether we would support or oppose this legislation. After an initial review, we have some concerns with the bill and potential unintended consequences, notably that:

The bill would require the Attorney General to provide for the humane placement or other humane disposition of any horse seized in connection with an offense under this section. As an organization deeply involved in the care of horses every day, we have concern that this requirement (for the Department of Justice, with no known capacity to care for seized horses) could result in improper treatment.

Simply adding criminal penalties – while not providing procedural guidelines or funding for the care and treatment of abandoned horses – will likely only exacerbate the situation. While supporters of this bill might believe that adding criminal penalties would cure the problem, it could easily make it worse.

These are but a few of the questions that we and our members are examining.

With all due respect, I believe that prior legislation dealt with this issue in a more comprehensive way, was designed to address some of the possible unintended consequences that we find troubling, and was on the whole better legislation for horses and horse owners. We continue to examine this legislation but these concerns remain.

Finally, several anti-slaughter advocacy groups, including the Humane Society of the United States and Animal Welfare Institute, listed the NTRA as supporters of this legislation before consulting us. We trust that they, and any other third party with whom you may have spoken relative to the NTRA’s position, have clarified that they claimed our endorsement before discussing our concerns with them. Our association takes no position on this bill at this time.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Alex Waldrop
President and CEO
National Thoroughbred Racing Association

Breeding Incentives Cause Rise in Slaughter Stats

Click on title above for full article & see para. #8. This is an old study, but becomes relevant in light of the new tax breaks and breeding incentives in the recently passed Farm Bill & Economic Stimlus Act that gives tax-breaks and breeding incentives to the racing industry. According to this old study, once incentives were removed, slaughter rates dropped by more than half!

From paragraph #8:

All indications are that racing is a major contributor to the horsemeat
export trade. An amazing statistic from the U.S. is that the removal of
tax benefits which encouraged the breeding of racehorses saw the total
number of horses slaughtered drop from 300,000 in 1990 to 88,000 in
2005.[6] That's a whopping 70% reduction despite an influx of Premarin
mares since 2002, though an offset has been an increase in rescue
organizations.

Blogger note: Time for some ammendments to the recent enactments that give tax breaks to the industry and promote more racehorse breeding? We think so!

Source; http://www.users.bigpond.com/berrime/slaughter.htm

TB's to NTRA: "We Dont Need No Friggin' Bill"

Remember waaaay back in 2003 the NTRA Openly Opposed Racehorse Slaughter? (Click title above to read the declaration.) So, we are wondering, what are they waiting for? Why dont they ban it?

Here is what the horses have to say to NTRA and their alleged anti-racehorse slaugher stance;

TB's to NTRA: "You Dont Need No Friggin' Bill to Stop Our Slaughter,"

ask Sam Elliott;

SUFFOLK DOWNS ACTS ON SLAUGHTER POLICY

9/21/08
by Steve Myrick

Suffolk Downs has taken action to enforce its policy of zero-tolerance toward the sale of racehorses for slaughter.

Track officials recently informed a Thoroughbred owner, who they would not identify, that he was no longer welcome at the track after two horses associated with him were discovered at the auction pens at New Holland, Pennsylvania.

Suffolk officials also are sorting through their response to another individual who may be involved in the transport of horses to auctions frequented by slaughterhouse buyers.

“The vast majority of our horsemen are responsible about the welfare of our horses,” said Chip Tuttle, chief operating officer at Suffolk Downs. “Unfortunately, there are one or two bad apples. We hoped we wouldn't have to take action on this policy, but in the last two weeks, it came to our attention that two horses from Suffolk Downs wound up at an auction. The owner who transported them is no longer welcome at our facility.”

Tuttle said the track purchased the two horses from the auction and donated them to the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation. Tuttle stressed that the incident was a rare exception to the prevailing attitude of local horsemen. He cited the New England Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association leadership's strong support of the zero-tolerance policy.

Sam Elliott, vice president of racing for the Boston track, outlined the policy earlier this year, and it has since attracted attention across the industry. Trainer Nick Zito cited his support for the policy as a factor in entering Commentator in the Massachusetts Handicap on Saturday.

Steve Myrick is a Massachusetts-based Thoroughbred Times correspondent

Track officials recently informed a Thoroughbred owner, who they would not identify, that he was no longer welcome at the track after two horses associated with him were discovered at the auction pens at New Holland, Pennsylvania.

Find above article at:

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2008/September/20/Suffolk-acts-on-slaughter-policy.aspx

Mad Cows & Martyred Horses

Click title above to see a new blog created specifically to study the relationship of mad cow disease as effects the international demand for horsemeat for human consumption, and how the USDAs failure to adequately & aggressively test for the disease keeps the foreign market demand for horsemeat going.....foreigners still dont trust our beef and who can blame them? European countries test EVERY cow for the disease while the USA tests only 1 in a thousand or so....

Zito Racing @ Suffolk Downs in Show of Solidarity

Trainer Nick Zito is running his horse "Commentator" at Suffolk Downs in a show of solidarity for the anti-racehorse slaughter campaign. As you may know, Sam Elliott, VP of Racing at Suffolk has "set the pace" for all others by coming down off of the "neutrality fence" in regards to the issue of race-horse slaughter. Mr. Elliot suprized the racing world by prohibiting any race horse from going to slaughter from his track, and in fact has warned that any owners or trainers occupying stalls at his track will be permanently banned if caught sending their horses to slaughter. Nick Zitto has been a stanch anti-horse slaughter advocate for quite a long time and is visitng Suffolk to "show respect" and solidarity for the position Mr Sam Elliot has taken. Zito says he knows of no other tracks that have "gone so far" as Suffolk in attempting to stop racehorse slaughter, but says he thinks others will join, adding that he "thinks" New York racetracks are against it (race-horse slaughter.) Well we certainly hope so Nick! Keep up the good work for the horses and tell Good Sam Elliott we all say "hey" and thanks for startin' it off.....

Click on post title at top to read full article

Former Judiciary Counselor Joins Pro-Slaughter Lobby Firm

The group — the Meat Promotion Coalition — has hired a lobbying firm that specializes in agricultural issues to make their case on Capitol Hill;

Cargill, Tyson Food, the National Cattlemen’s Association and the National Pork Producers Council are among the nine members of the new coalition, which hired the firm Lesher & Russell.



http://thehill.com/the-executive/meat-industry-wants-to-kill-country-of-origin-label-rule-2005-04-07.html


Bush Appoints over 100 lobbiests as industry regulators

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm

Charles Lambert

A USDA official and former lobbyist for the meat industry.

and

Ed Barron, Former Deputy Chief Counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee

joins (meat-industry)agricultural lobbying firm of Lesher & Russell* !!!!
And we thought we's be "safe" in the judiciary!

(*Lesher & Russell is the lobbying firm for the meat-industry that
has been blocking all of our anti-horse slaughter efforts)

Article;

The longtime all-Republican agriculture lobbying firm of Lesher &
Russell, which currently has six lobbyists and clients such as
Altria, Pepsi and the United Fresh Produce Association, is hiring
away 20-year Hill veteran Ed Barron from the Air Transport
Association.

The firm will be renamed Lesher, Russell & Barron.

"We definitely wanted to hire someone who was a Democrat and who had
strong Democratic ties," Randy Russell said.

Barron, who most recently served as deputy chief counsel of the
Senate Judiciary Committee under Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), will
join the firm in January just as his one-year lobbying ban is up.

Besides beefing up on their Democratic bonafides, the move also was a
look to the future for the firm.

"Bill [Lesher] and I have known each other friends 30 years. We've
been in business together almost 22 years, obviously we have to
prepare for the future," Russell said. "From this perspective we
thought it was very good to bring in somebody in a transition period
where they'd have an opportunity to work with our clients on a day-to-
day basis."

No wonder we cant win!

Click title above to read;

The "Revolving Door" Syndrome or;
"When Advocates Become Regulators" and vice-versa

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.




CJ/MK

Federal Court Allows USDA to Block Private Testing for Mad Cow Disease

Private US Meatpacker wants to test every cow, USDA says "no," Meatpacker files suit against USDA to allow private testing, Court rules in favor of USDA, bars meatpacker from testing for mad cow; what are they trying to hide?

By Charles Abbott
Reuters, August 29, 2008
Straight to the Source

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Agriculture Department is within bounds to
bar meatpackers from testing slaughter cattle for mad cow disease, a
U.S. Court of Appeals panel said in a 2-1 ruling on Friday.

Creekstone Farms Premium Beef LLC, a small Arkansas packer, filed
suit on March 23, 2006, to gain access to mad-cow test kits. It said
it wanted to test every animal at its plant to assure foreign buyers
that the meat was safe to eat.

Three U.S. cases of mad cow disease, a fatal neurological infection,
have been reported, the last in March 2006. People can contract a
human version of the disease by eating infected meats. Most nations
banned U.S. beef after the first case, in December 2003, but trade
has been restored for the most part.

In a 25-page ruling, Appellate Judges Karen Henderson and Judith
Rogers said USDA has authority under the 1913 Virus-Serum-Toxin Act
to prevent sale of mad-cow test kits to meatpackers. USDA interprets
the law to control products for "prevention, diagnosis, management or
care of diseases of animals."

David Sentelle, chief judge of the District of Columbia appeals
circuit, dissented from the decision. He said USDA "exceeds the
bounds of reasonableness" for a law enacted to prevent the sale of
ineffective animal medicine.

USDA allows the mad-cow test kits to be sold only to laboratories
that it approves. It says the tests should not be used as a marketing
tool and the cattle that comprise the bulk of the meat supply are too
young to be tested reliably.

Two large export markets, Japan and South Korea, accept beef only
from younger U.S. cattle. Mad cow is found mostly in older cattle.
Its incubation period is two to eight years.

Creekstone said it lost $200,000 a day due to reduced U.S. beef
exports when it filed its lawsuit.

In its lawsuit, Creekstone argued the 1913 law could not be invoked
to prevent use of products like "rapid test" kits for mad cow disease
and the kits were not a "treatment" for livestock.

U.S. District Judge James Robinson had ruled in March 2007 that USDA
could not control mad cow tests because they are not a treatment for
animals.

The United States applies a number of safeguards against mad cow,
formally named bovine spongiform encephalopathy. They include a ban
on using cattle parts in feed and requirements for packers to remove
at slaughter the materials most likely to carry the mad-cow agent --
the brain, spinal column and nervous system tissue.

Click on title for full article;
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14421.cfm