Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

June McIntosh — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:20:41 GMT

It's clear that horse racing as a profit-making industry needs to go. Let horse-racing continue as an amateur hobby, where the prospect of win/lose profit/loss does not rear its ugly head so much. We do not see huge numbers of gymkhana ponies being disposed of because they don't make the grade.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

GerrieP — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:10:51 GMT

The information regarding half the foal crop each headed for slaughter is within the original article.

Frankly, I hope it is an inflated statement. However, the less foals there are each year the less death, one way or the other.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

ETrainer — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:56:10 GMT

One question:

you state that half the annual foal crop of thoroughbreds is slaughtered each year. Where does this information come from? Do we have numbers of registered thoroughbreds slaughtered each year?

One observation:

As a trainer I also volunteered for my local horse retirement group and have found second homes for many, many thoroughbreds. As I now operate at a track which will suspend me if any horse I trained ends up at a slaughter house, I have to reconsider the efforts I have made to give horses a second chance. It seems that my only option with these horses now is to recommend humane euthanasia. I would much rather try to find each horse a home but a consequence of well intentioned laws makes it too risky for me to do so.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

GerrieP — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:59:06 GMT

It is time for the racing industry to put itself in check and in truth, PUT THE HORSE FIRST.

Where is the glory of racing when the realty is becoming more transparent.

The racing industry needs a recovery program for the horses, just as the nation's economy. It is way past time for regulations for responsible racing, ownership, and the rules of the game.

Maybe, if that day ever comes, half of thoroghbred foals will escape being someone's dinner overseas, and I won't read about another death. This past year, I can name so many horse ahtletes I followed who died.

I guarantee racing will die as the sport of kings for our next generations of racing fans, if meaningful action isn't taken.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

qtcaryn — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:17:51 GMT

WELL STATED! There is a very big difference between putting a horse down and "Slaughtering" them. I understand that horses may need to be put to sleep due to injury etc, but having respect for these horses and doing it humanely should not be a debate, it should be the law!

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

Rosscarbery — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:39:33 GMT

As a fan of horse racing, I think euthanisia, though not the only, or best option should be still be considered, at least for the most damaged horses. It would help to enable better controls over vanning and stabling, and reduce the number of horses to be adopted or retrained, thereby increasing their chance at a new life.

Volunteers,as terrific as they are, do not provide a permanent solution, and quite possibly give these owners and trainers a guilt free, way out.

All in all this is better than a horse tied to a tree, chewing bark, because the " owner " can't properly feed or vet the animal.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

Wanda — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:34:57 GMT

Bottom line what are you going to do with all the unwanted ones? TB's or otherwise and don't tell me that there's homes for all of them.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

Susan Pizzini — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:32:59 GMT

I believe Dr. Hogan's testimony before Congress is more than we need to hear about her position on horse slaughter. She has been very open about where she stands and I thank her for standing up in spite of the oppostion's power and influence. You have to admire that kind of courage of conviction.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

sceptre — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:01:18 GMT

Re: Dr. Hogan's last comments:

So I suppose from her perspective it's better to do the wrong thing for the right reasons (perhaps hers), or the right thing for the wrong reasons (perhaps, most of the bloggers). Neither, I'd suggest, is the proper course. Rather she in this blog, and all of us, particularly the veterinarians, should be involved in discourse in debating what are the "right" reasons.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

Dr. Patty Hogan — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:07:32 GMT

Dear HORSES4LIFE -

I actually did not give a personal opinion as to how I feel about horse slaughter. I was only pointing out that the aggressive pro-slaughter political stance taken by the leaders of the AAEP/AVMA contributed to the public's mistrust of veterinarians. That sort of political position did not seem to coinicide with what the public expected from veterinarians in regards to equine welfare. So I was trying to point out that we have credibility issues that we need to be aware of if we want to be considered an authority on equine welfare issues.

Also, racing is truly an entertainment venue in this country, and as such, relies on public acceptance and support in order to operate. Regardless of anyone's personal views on slaughter, the fact that a large number of Tb racehorses are slaughtered is just bad for racing - plain and simple. And if we as an industry do not recognize that very important point, ignoring it will certainly continue to contribute to our decline.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

sceptre — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:49:46 GMT

Most on this blog seem to feel that breeding fewer horses is part of the solution. While many (including some of the above same) would prefer it otherwise, racing is contracting due to lack of popularity. This may inevitably reduce some of the numbers (less demand), but may not appreciably alter the economics of racehorse ownership. Our laws will not permit arbitrary exclusion of owners,mandates that breeders/owners remain responsible for the good care of their horses for life-just take a look at the plight of so many dogs and cats-if the public won't demand such laws for them, the legislatures certainly won't enact such a law for horses. As far as a more stringent test for trainers, I doubt that any test would do much to sort out the bad from the good. And one cannot test for greed or heartlessness, etc. There are no simple solutions, but perhaps one avenue may be through raw economics. This wouldn't create the total solution, but might substantially improve the situation. What if we simply restricted the total number of lifetime starts a horse would be permitted to run? Unlike some of the other proposed laws, such a law could be enacted by the various racing governing bodies without much fear of constitutional redress. Limiting the permitted lifetime starts should drastically decrease the owner/breeder base-due to economics. There would still be racing, but then as much more of a sport than a business (not that even now it's much of a business). Those (owners) (trainers) that remained would then go to great lengths to be certain their horses were "right" before competing. Gone would be the drops down the claiming ranks. Those retired would be far liklier to be sound, and suitable for another career. This would create many other ramifications. It would likely lessen the public's interest in the sport (lesser starts/lesser chance of creating heros) and, no doubt, remove many of the "better" (along with more of the bad) owners/breeders from the sport. But, to a diminished extent, we would perhaps have our cake and eat it too-horseracing/far more protected horses.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

Michelle — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:49:11 GMT

Thanks for the honest article and the oourage to say the things that need to be said. Unfortunately, there is a lot of money in horse racing and that always brings out the worst in some people. After all, the love of money is the root of all evil. Some people would sell their grandmother if the price was right. I agree whole heartedly with one of the previous postings that talked about the licensed trainers. There should be some kind of universal guidelines to get a trainer's license other than filling out a form and paying a registration fee. It is not acceptable or responsible to put the care of a horse into the hands of someone who is not qualified. There are lives at stake (jockeys and horses)! I watch horse racing frequently and I am a huge fan of the sport. The horse slaughter issue is the one issue that will drive me away from the sport. I don't like the idea of euthanasia either but accept that it is necessary, it is certainly preferable. Breeding less horses would be a good start. These are living creatures not slot machines that can be discarded at the local dump.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

MAG — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:37:51 GMT

Thank you Dr. Hogan for having to courage to speak out. I hope others join you in walking the walk.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

Alexa R. — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:49:30 GMT

Great article Dr. Hogan. One of the big issues here is that there are just too many thoroughbreds being born each year. More horses may mean the potential for more stakes winners, but it also inevitably leads to more animals that can't perform well. Unfortunately, you can't turn every slow racehorse into a calm school horse or jumper. Especially in today's economy, a stable can't spend money taking care of a horse that needs to be rehabilitated into a new career and is not "earning its keep." If the number of horses decreases, there will be fewer unsuccessful runners that need new jobs and there won't be such a large excess of unwanted animals that "create the need" for slaughter.

re: Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

Gina Powell — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:26:05 GMT

This is a major problem that must take a multi-faceted approach for the sake of the racehorse. We need to develop and enforce strong laws that are attached to the breeder and/or owner of the racehorse. If you breed a horse then you should be held fiscally responsible for that horse should it be found in a killing pen on the way to the slaughterhouse. Further, if an owner has made a certain amount of money from that horse while it was racing, then they should be made legally and fiscally responsible for that horse until it dies that includes paying board bills for that horse or they should be sued.It is simple as that. If there was such a law, then it would eliminate these people breeding and owning racehorses for the sole purpose of being ego hungry for that horse in the Breeders Cup or Kentucky Derby parade who usually end up in the slaughterhouse if they do not finish in the top 3 or worse they get sent down the claiming ranks and like MIGHTY BEAU(after making millions) ended up in a $4000 claiming race at Penn National snapping his leg off in the stretch - great end for a horse that made millions huh?