Suffolk Downs Anti-slaughter Policy a Joke

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Monarchos1

It's sad that you need a defense. Good luck to you, your owners and, most of all, your horses.

Good luck to you in your witchhunt where trainers are cast as witches like in Salem which isn't too far away from Suffolk Downs. You obviously have zero grasp of the issue at hand like so many of your pretty horse brethren who fail to understand that the tracks like Suffolk are simply passing the buck with their rules meant to pander to uninformed individuals such as yourself. Perhaps if people like you who are so deadset against horseslaughter would not let your emotions get in the way of dealing with the problem realistically then there would be improvement in this area. But you would rather draw a mythical line in the sand and refuse to listen to reason. Of course you probably never actually have to make a decision that effects the life of a horse or pay for their care. And while I hardly have to defend the health of my horses from the likes of a nitwit like you, it's safe to say that none of them are unhealthy, uncared for or headed for an untimely demise.

[Monarchos1]

Well that's good to know. I trust you'll check out those good stories and brochures thoroughly.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with Suffolk's stated policy, track management has been exposed as hypocrital media whores in this instance. If the policy wasn't realistic, why did they implement it? To get some publicity, perhaps? And why did they announce the reinstatement of these trainers when they knew no one who be paying attention due to the focus on Derby preps and right before the meet starts. The track's hard line stance and subsequent laughable penalities of an apologetic letter and $1,000 donation are an insult to anyone who cares about animal welfare.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Monarchos1

Well that's good to know. I trust you'll check out those good stories and brochures thoroughly.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with Suffolk's stated policy, track management has been exposed as hypocrital media whores in this instance. If the policy wasn't realistic, why did they implement it? To get some publicity, perhaps? And why did they announce the reinstatement of these trainers when they knew no one who be paying attention due to the focus on Derby preps and right before the meet starts. The track's hard line stance and subsequent laughable penalities of an apologetic letter and $1,000 donation are an insult to anyone who cares about animal welfare.

It was obviously not a well thought out policy and as you say positive PR motivated. But keeping these three trainers banned under a bad rule in no way helps animal welfare. They didnt have to announce the reinstatements at all but they did. What would be the proper punishment for someone found to be improperly accused? People who truly care about animal welfare should send the track an email stating that they should spend some money on the issue and set up an adoption program or at the very least a humane euthanasia program instead of a lame zero tolerence policy that can't be properly enforced or monitored.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It was obviously not a well thought out policy and as you say positive PR motivated. But keeping these three trainers banned under a bad rule in no way helps animal welfare. They didnt have to announce the reinstatements at all but they did. What would be the proper punishment for someone found to be improperly accused? People who truly care about animal welfare should send the track an email stating that they should spend some money on the issue and set up an adoption program or at the very least a humane euthanasia program instead of a lame zero tolerence policy that can't be properly enforced or monitored.

And it was probably instituted in a hurry to shut up well-meaning animal lovers who don't think through to the root of the problem, which is too many unwanted horses. But they don't want to think about a complicated issue, so they focus on "horse slaughter bad!" make a stink, the racetrack management does the quickest thing it can think of to make the problem go away (okay! No slaughter tolerated here!) and then everyone is satisfied for a little while except the horses, who don't see any improvement in their eventual fates because nothing effective actually gets done.

If people want a long-term solution they're going to have to be willing to put pressure on the racing industry to (pardon the pun) pony up the $$ to see that the horses' retirements are funded and that the ones too infirm to enjoy a quality of life get humanely euthanized. But that's a lot of work because it requires owners and/or trainers and/or racetracks and/or the states that have race tracks to give up something, even though it likely would be a very small amount of money individually or per state (I would guess less than one percent of stakes purses or even handle would do wonders in funding rescue places). And in the ongoing war between kindness and commerce, I think kindness usually doesn't fare well.

And I think a lot of these animal lovers aren't really willing to put in the time and effort to work for a solution that would actually be in the best interests of the horses. How many anti-horse slaughter people do I know who eat factory-raised beef, poultry or pork? They're against horse cruelty, but, while they feel kind of bad about the fact that the chicken they're eating spent its short miserable life in an 8X10 cage with six other birds (with their beaks cut off), actually doing something about that would require inconveniencing themselves (spending more money on humanely raised meat, or limiting their meat intake) so they don't bother. And yet they expect people in the racing industry to be better human beings than they are because horses are prettier than chickens? Give me a break.

Sorry to ramble- I went on the page of one of the places involved in the Paragallo mares and the long list of very nice looking horses up for adoption really depressed me. So many horses and so few homes.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And it was probably instituted in a hurry to shut up well-meaning animal lovers who don't think through to the root of the problem, which is too many unwanted horses. But they don't want to think about a complicated issue, so they focus on "horse slaughter bad!" make a stink, the racetrack management does the quickest thing it can think of to make the problem go away (okay! No slaughter tolerated here!) and then everyone is satisfied for a little while except the horses, who don't see any improvement in their eventual fates because nothing effective actually gets done.

If people want a long-term solution they're going to have to be willing to put pressure on the racing industry to (pardon the pun) pony up the $$ to see that the horses' retirements are funded and that the ones too infirm to enjoy a quality of life get humanely euthanized. But that's a lot of work because it requires owners and/or trainers and/or racetracks and/or the states that have race tracks to give up something, even though it likely would be a very small amount of money individually or per state (I would guess less than one percent of stakes purses or even handle would do wonders in funding rescue places). And in the ongoing war between kindness and commerce, I think kindness usually doesn't fare well.

And I think a lot of these animal lovers aren't really willing to put in the time and effort to work for a solution that would actually be in the best interests of the horses. How many anti-horse slaughter people do I know who eat factory-raised beef, poultry or pork? They're against horse cruelty, but, while they feel kind of bad about the fact that the chicken they're eating spent its short miserable life in an 8X10 cage with six other birds (with their beaks cut off), actually doing something about that would require inconveniencing themselves (spending more money on humanely raised meat, or limiting their meat intake) so they don't bother. And yet they expect people in the racing industry to be better human beings than they are because horses are prettier than chickens? Give me a break.

Sorry to ramble- I went on the page of one of the places involved in the Paragallo mares and the long list of very nice looking horses up for adoption really depressed me. So many horses and so few homes.

i enjoyed your rant...but the chicken part is incorrect-chickens (broilers and fryers) grow up in huge, open houses-so do turkeys for that matter. they only go in cages when they get on the truck to go to the processer. if any manage to escape once out of the house, they're free-and i've seen some get loose in the past.
as for beaks getting cut off, i haven't seen that either. maybe it's egg layers they do that to? i have no idea. but there are a lot of chicken houses around here, that's how i know about them. i've been in one once. uncomfortably hot, and boy does it stink in there.

[sumitas]

http://www.fingerlakestap.org/

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And I think a lot of these animal lovers aren't really willing to put in the time and effort to work for a solution that would actually be in the best interests of the horses. How many anti-horse slaughter people do I know who eat factory-raised beef, poultry or pork? They're against horse cruelty, but, while they feel kind of bad about the fact that the chicken they're eating spent its short miserable life in an 8X10 cage with six other birds (with their beaks cut off), actually doing something about that would require inconveniencing themselves (spending more money on humanely raised meat, or limiting their meat intake) so they don't bother. And yet they expect people in the racing industry to be better human beings than they are because horses are prettier than chickens?

What about farm raised catfish?

People have got to establish what pain and suffering is
and in which species it matters.

Animals vary widely in
the type of nervous systems they have and clearly do not
feel pain the same way as mammals do. We try to make
this an easy issue but it is not.

Your chicken example of course led to the fish example.
Which could then lead to farm raised bivalves (mussels)
and on down the line. In all of these cases the animals
must be healthy in some way to yield the most meat
and to attempt to prevent disease.
Overcrowding... pain and suffering, its not that easy.

Better just stick with the mammals and watch it with
the birds, fish, amphibians (frogs), bivlaves ,echinoderms (sea cucumbers).
If you do go with the birds, I am going to have to insist
you also look closely into fish and mollusk torture.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pgardn

What about farm raised catfish?

People have got to establish what pain and suffering is
and in which species it matters.

Animals vary widely in
the type of nervous systems they have and clearly do not
feel pain the same way as mammals do. We try to make
this an easy issue but it is not.

Your chicken example of course led to the fish example.
Which could then lead to farm raised bivalves (mussels)
and on down the line. In all of these cases the animals
must be healthy in some way to yield the most meat
and to attempt to prevent disease.
Overcrowding... pain and suffering, its not that easy.

Better just stick with the mammals and watch it with
the birds, fish, amphibians (frogs), bivlaves ,echinoderms (sea cucumbers).
If you do go with the birds, I am going to have to insist
you also look closely into fish and mollusk torture.

surely catfish aren't in pain while swimming in these ponds i drive by? they get fed, swim around...and then they get flash frozen. but at least no one is starving them, not giving needed medical attention, and letting them get infested with parasites...

Originally Posted by Danzig

surely catfish aren't in pain while swimming in these ponds i drive by? they get fed, swim around...and then they get flash frozen. but at least no one is starving them, not giving needed medical attention, and letting them get infested with parasites...

Heck no they are not starving. But they are way overcrowded.
Its clearly not a "natural" situation just like chickens. You dont
starve chickens to sell the meat. Thats part of the reason I said
stick with the mammals as an arguement. I used catfish as an
example because there was a point raised about the overcrowding
of chickens applied to horse slaughter.

[Monarchos1]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It was obviously not a well thought out policy and as you say positive PR motivated. But keeping these three trainers banned under a bad rule in no way helps animal welfare. They didnt have to announce the reinstatements at all but they did. What would be the proper punishment for someone found to be improperly accused? People who truly care about animal welfare should send the track an email stating that they should spend some money on the issue and set up an adoption program or at the very least a humane euthanasia program instead of a lame zero tolerence policy that can't be properly enforced or monitored.

According to the TT article, these trainers admitted violating the policy as a condition of reinstatement. As for the announcement, Suffolk had little choice but to make it, as the trainers surely would have themselves. They took a proactive approach but timed it to coincide with Derby preps when no one would be paying attention. The Suffolk management isn't stupid, just hypocritical.