another hit piece
 

Very strange treatment that swings wildly from bug-eyed hysterics to reasonable, even positive, evaluation of industry efforts to minimize industry and fatality.

Yes, kind of bipolar,piece,i almost stopped reading it, before skimming the latter section.

These pieces ALWAYS seem to leave out the fact that horses can injure themselves out in a field or in a myriad of other ways that isn't in a race.

While there are many problems in the industry and some sleazy people out there, I feel like these articles always try to imply that somehow a horse running is inherently cruel or the horses are being forced to do something they don't like to do (run).

The answer to the 'animals ahead of humans' activists has to be firm, uniform and unwavering: This is an industry sustained by lifestyle careers employing 100's of 1,000's of people, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in job income and tax revenue. No other elaboration is necessary.

I don't know that "it makes money for people" is going to ever be a satisfying answer for people who think the sport is inherently cruel.

This argument has not worked for "clean coal," fracking, Walmart, feed lots or any issue you could name that has used it. Yes....those things still exist but public sentiment has only grown more negative.

You're using a lawyer's playbook on critical communications. And it never works.

I disagree. Business entities/industries that damage the environment or economic balance of communities are not in the same arena as something that is offending sensibilities.

Steve do you honestly believe the vast majority of the general public makes a distinction of moral hierarchy among something they think hurts the environment, something they think hurts poor people/workers, or something they think hurts animals?

Gosh.. I sure hope so. If you asked people to rank the 3 in order of importance, you'd like to think humanity comes first with environment/animals in a photo for second. If you asked people to prioritize which use of animals is most egregious, isn't raising animals for consumption far more horrific than raising them for sport and pleasure? 1,000 horses may die in competition a year. 29,000,000 cows and calves died last year for burgers and veal parm.

Well said.

I'm not saying your logic is flawed Steve, because I would hope so too. But people don't. More charitable dollars are spent here in Las Vegas on homeless pets than on homeless children. Also more than the two relatively stable domestic violence shelters. By a multiple of at least two.

It is merely about what is the "latest and loudest" and it is entirely conceivable that horse racing is banned in a state long before Walmart pays a living wage or whatever arbitrary measure of fairness people come up with.

except many rich people own racehorses. they're quite good at keeping things as they wish

Aren't we already "donating" to these shelters via our tax dollars.

I agree.

The response of "it creates jobs" is not going to convince any activist to change their mind. They are misinformed or ignorant of horses in general and simply see some internet piece like this and conclude that horse racing= cruelty to animals.

Yes. And you're also donating toward animal shelter usually through tax dollars, and wildlife preserves. And subsidizing child care, so what? I am speaking about private dollars.

Do me a favor, if you are so inclined. Do some brief research on how often a ballot initiative in any state billed as protecting animals from cruelty has been defeated.

I am not so inclined. It is not exactly easy to get an initiative on a ballot. Takes a lot of work to get an initiative on a ballot, and i can just image someone in ky trying to get enough votes to get a ban horse racing initiative approved.
Steve byk knows quite a bit about the state of racing. Until he gets worried, i see no reason to get excited.

Steve Byk knows more about the horse racing industry than I ever will. His suggested argument against those that believe horse racing is cruel is misguided and lacks perspective. This I know a bit about.

Who is excited?

Having just watched Concussion, I think it's fair to say that racing as an industry has been better to its' athletes than the NFL has been to theirs.

I'm confident that presenting the sport as a socially productive way of life is quite viable. But since I lack perspective, please inform as to what the better defense might be.

I especially enjoy the people in the comment section pointing to Barbaro as the the ultimate example of animal cruelty and negligence by owner/trainer etc. Tough to muster up an argument with that level of intelligence.

First Steve, I did not say and would not say YOU lack perspective. But if you wish to take this personally then that's your choice. Your argument that it is socially productive will boil down to one thing in the vast majority of people's minds, "money for some people."

I'm sorry that does not resonate in these cases. I concur with others you will not change some activists mind. To the general public outside of that group? You may change some with your argument. You may.

What would be more effective is showing that the industry as a whole does everything possible to treat these animals well, that those that don't are dealt with severely, and that the animals well being is number one, not money.

Can the industry show that today? I don't know what most lay people would say to that. Maybe it doesn't matter, but either the industry controls the message or PETA and their friends will.

When I juxtapose these 2 statements I can only come to the conclusion that you are trolling us. Typical Internet argument when you get called out blame the target of the argument as not understanding what you said. I would think 99% of us would come to the same conclusion Steve did.If I am wrong please explain how statement 1 didnt explicitly say Steve lacked prespective on this issue.

Telling (and demonstrating to) lay people (critics among the lay people) that we're doing everything to protect the horses doesn't work because they implicitly believe that the very act of using horses for sport/entertainment is byzantine, cruel and should end.

It's simplistic to view my argument ('racing is comprised of lifestyle choice careers that constitute a socially viable industry worth billions') as equating to 'you're saying it makes money so it's OK'. My argument is more defined than that.

Racing doesn't have to be defensive when presenting the case that the animals are tools for the welfare and greater good of humans. That's why they're on earth. To serve us. We should be as humane as possible utilizing their service. I don't like to characterize horses as livestock per se, but they are beasts of burden.

Anyone arguing that racing shouldn't exist will further advocate for total emancipation of animals in the food or consumer good chain. In this discussion, you're 100% for or against. I'm sorry that I haven't evolved to a higher plain that puts the animals ahead of humanity.

To be clear that I am not trolling, then by all means if my wording implies or appeared to imply Steve lacked perspective then I certainly apologize. I do not believe that Steve lacks perspective. I should have left it at misguided.

Clearly I'm in the minority here so I won't belabor this. Have a great week everyone.