Suffolk Downs Anti-slaughter Policy a Joke

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

without free euthanasia or the ability for any/every horse to get "dropped off" at a rescue group there is no feasible way to adopt a zero-tolerance policy for slaughter.
I've been in the position recently of trying to find homes for a couple of horses and belive me it's next to impossible to find the perfect home. One had an injury that may prevent her from ever being ridden and she isn't the kind of quality that anyone in the racing industry would consider breeding her...it took several months before I found someone looking for a companion horse. The caveat was that they wanted the option to breed her...now, personally I don't think she should ever be bred and I know that by giving them this mare I am directly contributing to the overpopulation of horses....BUT if not for them she has nowhere to go. So I gave her to them, and they love her...and plan to breed her soon to a Quarter Horse.
Issues like these happen every single day and there is no black or white answer. The sad fact is that they can't all be kept and some would be better off dead. I in no way support slaughter, I think it is cruel and barbaric, but until there are shelters like dog pounds where they can be dropped off and euthanized if they cna't find homes then what is the solution?
We are fortunate enough that we can afford to feed the horses that need new homes until they find one but what about the people who can't? It's not always about the $300 bucks they might get from a kill buyer...sometimes it's the $300 they don't have to spend on euthanasia and carcass disposal.

Was the mare doable?

[reese]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am not sure that a policy that bans people for the misdeeds of others (legal misdeeds) is a good policy in the first place. The real villains are still banned. Believe me it is not easy to find homes for these types of horses and someone with a good story and phony brochures can get you. I just dont know how you can blame trainers for actions of others once the horses are out of their control. Despite the obvious distaste for horse slaughter, the legislating of responsibility beyond your immediate care is wrought with problems.

I believe the issue with Suffolk is that the trainers in question "claim they had "NO inkling" that they were giving horses to a killer buyer. That is a big lie to swallow.

Most on the backstretch know who is who...especially like a third rate track like Suffolk with a limited horse population. Canter is very active in NE, especially Suffolk so these trainers go the Paragallo school of deny,deny,deny.

No question. Too many unwanted horses is a big problem especially breeders like Paragallo running a puppy mill for "horses"

Controlled euthanasia is a better alternative than the "torture trip" from track to slaughter.
A bullet in the head is better than the torture these unwanted horses face getting to the slaughter facility. They "know" where they are going...and would probably opt for a quick, "painless" death.

[Suffolk Shippers]

All in all, I'm pretty disappointed with Suffolk on this. As a local, I have been following Richard Fields and his "new regime" operate here and they have done a lot of good for the whole operation. Going there on a nice afternoon for a day is now enjoyable, where as a few years ago it was close to unbearable. They should all be commended for bringing the track out of the toilet.

I'm all for anti-slaughter. I don't have an issue saying that. However, there is no denying there is an over-abundance in the population and something has to be done. It just cannot be cut and dry, as anti-slaughter being the answer. The game needs creative ideas to try and lower the overall population. Inhumane slaughter should not be part of the answer, however, Suffolk Downs chose to make it their main centerpiece of their platform. I think that's great, if that's what you want to do. But, you need to back that up.

If you say you're banning folks who partake in the sale of stock that ends up in kill pens then you need to stick to that. If you are going to give leeway to some, like Chip Tuttle has done, then clearly your policy is not what it was pumped up to be. Suffolk should be commended for their anti-slaughter stance, but they deserve condemnation in it's lousy execution. Looks like it's already time to clarify what the policy actually is.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Was the mare doable?

Not my type.
But doable I'm sure.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by reese

I believe the issue with Suffolk is that the trainers in question "claim they had "NO inkling" that they were giving horses to a killer buyer. That is a big lie to swallow.

That is the problem. Trying to determine who is "lying" and who isn't does not solve the issue. If the tracks want to take a stand, fine. Then they can fund a solution that coincides with that stand. This is not a question of legalities, it is a question of morality. And regardless of whether a track is privately held or not, legislating morality is a slippery slope. Singling out the last link on the responsibility chain is easy for the tracks and its supporters. Yet the root of the problem is still being ignored.

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...

[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.

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.