The breeding industry should place a minimum $250 fee on breeding their mares and a fee should go on to every stallion service. And if you can't afford this then you shouldn't be breeding. The money would 1)hopefully get people to be more responsible about the quality of horse they are breeding

2) decrease the amount of foals as there is an excess of Tb's being bred especially at the lower end

3)hopefully this would decrease the number of unwanted horses in the industry and

4) put some of that money towards rehabilitation groups that take in these Tb's at the end of their careers. It amazes me to see horses that have made $100,000's for someone who just ditches them at the end of their career and typically they are unsound. People need to be way more accountable for how they treat the horses.

Oh Linda i totally agree and my name is Linda also.

Just posted on the blog that stated Hotstufandthensome found a new forever home.

Last year i posted that the number of mares being bred should be lessened greatly which agrees with your 2) statement. I was advised by someone that would not help, but common sense and this article vindicates me on that one issue.

And you are also exactly correct about your 4) statement. We simply as human beings cannot toss 'used up' horses to beg for homes and be discarded. Whether they made a million, thousands or hundreds of $$$$$$. They deserve better.  

It is a sore subject for many and they think if they look the other way the issue will go away.

Reality is rough to face. Looking the other way is disgraceful.  

OTBs need to provide bettors with WiFi access. I live near a CNL OTB.  The OTB is in a metal building which renders my 4G card useless.

I won't bet with the regular wall of TVs and a 15 second look at the horse.  Apparently the Blind Luck fiasco wasn't enough to open track managements eyes.

AMEN LINDA

You're right, Linda, but the heart of this is the old worn out supply and demand rule. If there are too many foals, there's a reason; if there are too many unwanted Thoroughbreds, that is the expected result of the too many foals issue. And to steal a quote from the article........"We also have to make our racing product better....". THAT'S the biggest problem of all. It makes no sense to breed a mare just because she's standing out in the pasture; not every mare should be bred just because she's a mare. It still costs money to keep an uncovered mare, so why increase the expense of keeping her with the additional expense if she IS bred? ESPECIALLY, if the odds of getting a return on your investment (or even breaking even) are very low. Too many babies translates into too many grown horses which translates into too many UNwanted entries into the sales ring which then translates into far too many unwanted horses...PERIOD. Breeders have, indeed, stepped up and cut back on the number of covers, but they need to cut back more. Breeding more babies to sell to cover the money that you lost two years ago will never happen, and we all know that the real cream on the the first few days in the sales rings quickly dissipates into skim milk by the last days of the sale. Why breed MORE unwanted horses at all? Isn't 30,000 foals a year enough to have a selection? The fewer, more carefully crafted breedings may not get you The Big Horse, but I'd bet you'd have a better chance to sell it! Supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand. THEN we need to worry, BIG TIME, about what happens to all the rest of the unwanted horses that already exist. We created 'em; we need to care for what we created. Both sides of the same coin.......don't make 'em unnecessarily, don't throw 'em out when you've used 'em up. Sound fair?

Cheers and safe trips.

Amen, Linda! Like our human athletes, our equine athletes should be set for life when they retire. If stallions weren't retired so quickly to the breeding shed, there would be a lot less unwanted animals.

How about Eclipse Award winner, Classic Winner,  and Champion Three Year Old Colt...........Summer Bird...earner of over $2,300,000 standing for $15,000! That is REAL adjustment in fee value. How can you ignore him while attempting to make this point? Unbelievable.    

Has anyone except Ben Walden here even looked at field size lately?  Y'all can't see the forest for your concern about the tree.

seb, I REALLY don't want to get into this discussion on a sour note, but are you seriously saying that field sizes are smaller because breeders have cut back??? How about the durability and quality of foals? Maybe that could be a problem? How about the endless days of racing with no breaks for a rest here and there? How about time off at the farm for a bit of recuperation from a smallish injury that could become career, or life, threatening? Care to discuss the numbers of foals registered in say, the 1950's and 60's, and the size and quality of fields running then?? Just go to the Jockey Club site and check out the numbers. They don't support your theory. Larger foal crops do not necessarily translate into bigger fields or BETTER runners, for that matter.

Sorry, the argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, seb. Concern for the horses is, and should be, of great importance. After all, the sport is still called horse racing, right? I can't see any result from smaller foal crops as being bad for the industry.

Cheers and safe trips to all.

The big picture is not with the breeder, the adjustment is already made there. If there are no buyers there will not be foals out there to purchase. The changes need to be made when the horse goes to the races. There should be a fee for the owner to pay for final expenses for his horse and a insurance policy in force for his care, should something bad happen. Now that it is easy to keep stats on animals, horses that are dropping in ranks should only be allowed to drop to a point and then once that is reached they need to be donated to a center or kept by the owner. Horses with a following or good race records could have a paddock at the track that the public could visit. People like to visit horses they are familiar with. Horse shows could be held on dark days with horses that have been retrained. Give the public more than one reason to go to the track that does not involve slots and people will come.

First, let me say that my "name" is in honor of the best horse I ever owned.

Beyond that, I do believe that we should return to the days when a stallion should cover no more than 40 mares per season. We are doing a real diservice to the gene pool by allowing fewer Grade One stallions to cover 100 mares - many of which would never have qualified when private syndicates ruled the breeding industry.

On the other hand, breeding thoroughbreds as Sport Horses has been seriously under estimated as an legitemate way to provide top class Eventers, Jumpers and Hunters. These are the "sound" animals that bred back into our racing stock will keep racing alive for generations to come.

TELL Mr. Russell "THEY NEED A REEL PROMOTOR WITH A HAPPY MEAL N HIS HAND"...WAKE UP BUTTER CUP???...ty...

I am familiar with the growth of foal crop size particularly since the 1960s.  And I completely agree that long term welfare concerns are a crucial--and too often ignored--part of managing race horse careers.

Where I depart company with several of the commenters above, however, is the sense that somehow by wishing it you can return the breed to what it was 40 years ago.  And that selecting for robustness would not in and of itself produce excess and unwanted horses.  The simple fact here is that fast horses win races.  That producing a competitive animal is difficult.  That, because of this, regardless of how few animals you breed for the track there will always be animals who are not wanted because they are not suited for racing, despite their breeding.

As to my previous comments on field size they are relevant.  Examining the Jockey Club figures, as recommended, shows that at the point where the largest foal crops in US production history were in their racing prime the number of races also peaked--the late 1980s and early 1990s.  It seems that the expansion in the number of races was not just matched by crop expansion, but exceeded by it.  I refer to Jockey Club figures that show increases in the following

1930s

foals +65%, races +43%

1940s:

foals +28%, races +46%

1950s

foals +46%, races +52%

1960s

foals +84%, races +45%

1970s

foals +54%, races +42%

1980s

foals +65%, races +16%

1990s

foals -19%, races -5%

Fresh data for the just completed decade is only available for races, but it shows a 19% drop in the number of races.  This is only beginning to catch up with the drop in available runners coming from the drastic declines in 2009, 2010 and the anticipated 2011 crop.

It is not my opinion that the number of races will drop in North America, it is a statistical pattern that suggests that the number of races has a correlation to the number of foals born.  However, after a century where the general trend in crop has been upwards, it is not very certain that the contraction in races will rapidly follow the decline in crop, but it is pretty sure that it will.  The question is how many racing venues will try to continue racing without the stock to do so in any profitable way, and how many will simply choose to fold their tents before bleeding themselves dry.

Thus Mr. Russell's comments that the breeders have 'done their part' by decreasing the number of offerings and making the cost of producing a foal less than it was only a few years ago is, as Ms Biles suggests off of Mr. Russell's comments, only one part in a very complex puzzle to maintain a viable racing industry.

Points well made and taken, seb. I appreciate your expanding on your original post. Possibly the comments made by Mr Russell could have been expanded a bit, as well. It seems he feels that the breeding aims have been accomplished and now the breeders are no longer part of the problem. Racing's overall problems are so enormous, widespread and diverse I'm not certain a Solomon could solve 'em now. Maybe a bright spot here and there will break the logjam, but it will take determination, creativity beyond belief, and a willingness to accept change............... hmmmmm NOT a very cheerful picture, is it?

Cheers and safe trips.

HMMM, so have the breeders really done there job or have they just simply ajusted do to the battered ececonomic state that our country has found its way into ? there is no reason to belive that the breeders have goten there act together, its simple economics, when the money drys up you lower prices because you cant get blood from the dirt, the gene pool has shrunk, stamina is no longer present in our breed, and turf is no longer on the radar,have the breeders really gotten there act together ? after one or two crops I DONT THINK SO but then  to quote Charles Barkley"I may be wrong, but i DOBUT it.

AMEN BROTHER BEN!!!...ty...

While it is all well and good to clammer for less breeding - The fewer foals there are, the fewer make it to the races - We can already see the smaller field sizes -soon it will lead to less races at fewer tracks. While many think this is a good idea, think about all the people who will no longer have jobs in the racing industry.

The industry must learn to fund the retirement of race horses beginning when they are foaled.  This should become mandatory for all TBs that reach the race track.

I believe those TBs produced outside of racing are far sounder and more likely to receive a loving retirement.  This is primarily because their owners are not motivated solely by return on investment.

It would be great for racing to also provide a premier and lucrative series of races for horses over 4.  This might actually have some impact on retirement to the breeding shed by 3yos and lead the industry past the precocious speed at 2 track it currently pursues.  Needless to say, more distance races would be great to see also.

It is the same with any animal that you breed. Only quality animals should be bred.  I used to breed pomeranian dogs.  Now the pom that i have now is a wonderful pet but he is not a breed quality animal and will never be bred.  His parents should have never been bred either.  I got him from a commercial breeder under extremely crowded conditions. Dogs are extremely overbred and over populated.  Many have to be put down in shelters because they are unwanted.  Like most of you say only quality animals should bred. That should help reduce the animals in shelters and get more homes for them.