On Horses too Thin to Slaughter

Stephanie wrote about horses dying across the pond yesterday. This morning I read that they're dying here too, and those who defend thoroughbred racing might want to pay careful attention to who died and why. In "Prominent Horseman Faces Questions About Neglect," Joe Drape of the New York Times reports:

Four undernourished and neglected former racehorses belonging to Ernie Paragallo, a prominent New York thoroughbred breeder and owner, were rescued from a New York kill pen last month, one step from being slaughtered. They were among more than 20 horses from Paragallo’s Center Brook Farm in Climax, N.Y., that were sold to slaughter for $680.

This is an interesting moment in the story:

Paragallo said Thursday that he had given the horses away to a Florida-based breeder, whom he did not identify, in December with the agreement that he could breed the mares back to one of his stallions based in New York or Florida. In fact, Paragallo said, he had intended to ship another batch of horses to the man.

. . .

Paragallo said he could not remember the last name of the man he gave the horses to, his telephone number or his farm address.

The transporter of the horses discovered that the horses were in such poor condition (hundreds of pounds underweight, infested with lice and worms and riddled with infections) that they wouldn't have survived the trip to Florida. So he took them to the kill pen to sell them for slaughter.

[T]hey were in such bad condition that [the kill pen operator] had to feed them for several weeks just to get them in shape for the trip to the slaughterhouse.

What does the average horse racing-loving person think happens to horses when they stop winning? Or have to stop racing? And what do they think happens to the horses who aren't ever good enough to compete? And how many horses do they think live the decades they can live, in a natural environment, eating what they're supposed to eat and not being forced to somehow earn their keep/pay their way. The horses who are well-cared for (because they can make someone money) that we see on the television represent a fraction of the horses who are created by people in the hope of profiting from their natural ability. Not all of the ones who win, as this story demonstrates, are repaid with respectable retirements.

Imagine what happens to the ones who lose.

Comments

[Roger]

I'd say it is fairly certain that the average racing supporter is ignorant of what goes on, but we do set great store in not knowing: http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-not-knowing.html

I wonder, for example, about how many are aware that horses are not necessarily natural jumpers when encountering obstacles: http://www.ehow.com/how_2188749_train-thoroughbred-horse-hurdling.html or the trouble non-professionals may have in getting horses prepared for jumping: http://www.ehow.com/how_2188749_train-thoroughbred-horse-hurdling.html

Of course, we expect this use in societies saturated in speciesist norms and values; but it is interesting that the language often changes in relation to ~these~ nonhuman deaths. I regard most as ideological guff to be honest.

[Roger]

April 2nd.

1.15pm: It's time to address the thorny subject of equine deaths. I would be lying if I said it doesn't cross my mind at every jumps festival.

One of the members of the press corps who I do not consider a candidate for Mastermind was saying how great it was that "only" one horse died at Cheltenham. I understand their tack, but the horribly glib way that some people discuss these things tends to get me revved up.

I hope we get through this week alright. I have walked a bit of the course (well, down to the second-last hurdle anyway) and it is typical spring ground.

But there will be some very fast-run races this week. Too fast. And we know from bitter experience that speed kills.

There is nothing worse than some po-faced twit moralising at you, I know, but I do think it is right to pause for thought. Externalising your fears somehow helps to lessen them.

Whatever wins and loses, may they all come home safely.

http://www.racingpost.com/blog/horse-racing/james-willoughby/aintree-live-blog-thursday/175629/

April 3rd

630pm: Two more deaths today. Lilla Sophia who fractured her left-hind tibia in the bumper and Moscow Catch who broke his neck in a fall in Sefton Novices' Hurdle.

First of all, condolences to their connections from everyone at the Racing Post. It must be hideous for such excitement to turn to abject, desultory loss.

There have now been four equine deaths at Aintree 2009. But you cannot blame clerk of the course Andrew Tulloch. The ground has had a significant amount of moisture in it, so there must have been a deal of watering.

And it is fair to say that the watering has been judicious and well executed.

I expressed my thoughts on the issue before racing in yesterday's blog. I don't have anything to add, really.

I suppose you can't dwell on these things. Everything is being done to maximise safety etc etc etc

It just seems troubling when you come to these meetingsand enjoy yourself so. Philosophically, I can find a rationale for the rate of equine deaths in racing, though my particular moral construct is for Flat racing rather than jumping.

I have always tried to live my life as intelligently as possible. In my writing and in my personal dealings, I like to have a moral defence in place for such as green issues, animal welfare and things such as the global distribution of wealth.

I do not consider racing in totality is per se cruel. Not at all. I am not so weak that I would make a living condoning it if I felt that way. It is not a posture of convenience; it is an honest belief.

In totality, racing is, I believe, relatively easy to defend. But there are clearly isolated incidents, noise in the data, randomly scattered events, which should cause us to stop and think.

On the one hand, we can't stop for soul-searching every time a horse dies in action. That would be ridiculous; a knee-jerk vexation to a problem which is so profound that it should be tackled as a holistic concept.

But this presents an obvious paradox to an intelligent mind. Because neither can we dismiss every death as merely a statistic and stand by until sufficient data has built up.

The data set, in this case, is animals' lives. In this case, it is better to draw a hasty but preventative conclusion first and revise it, if necessary, after.

In the case of these four deaths, there has been nothing to link them. One a crunching fall over the National fences, the next aheart attack, the third a fractured limb and the last a hideous fall over hurdles.

I don't feel comfortable about witnessing four deaths at first hand while otherwise having a tremendously entertaining time.

But I am satisfied - very satisfied - that in this case the grisly effect had disparate causes.

Tomorrow is a different day and a crucial one for the sport. Whoever wins, let's hope it goes well. A base of four does not need to many added to it before it can be projected as something more than it truly is.

May they all come home safely.

Good night and please post your views. I really appreciate every one intelligently expressed.

http://www.racingpost.com/blog/horse-racing/james-willoughby/-aintree-live-blog-friday/175958/

[Jane Beckie]

Low life scum--he knew exactly what was going to happen to them and didn't care. Race and show horses are disposable objects. The Kentucky Derby is crap--a few of the people used to care now they don't. Some of the finest thoroughbreds have ended up starving or slaughtered. Paragallow is a liar--keeping mares thin so they will breed better. Keeping mares thin because he is not going to spend one more dollar on them when they are no use to him. And to think people adore these horse people--I hope they rot.

[Beaelliott]

Not unlike the animal ag sites, where "food animals" are mere commodities, I found this racing-post link equally as offensive. What a bunch of numb brutes they all are. I never could understand how people were capable of such apathy as to the suffering of others. Roger, thanks to your essay... I have better insight as to how it comes to be. And also how frightening it's consequences are.

"On Horses too Thin to Slaughter" - a title and a story that will stay with me for a long time yet to come.

[Alex]

This really illuminates the calcification of our collective "natural order" assumption. It is the case that even "horse people," many of whom I do not doubt their sincerity when they say they love their horse, are still incapable of viewing this "love" from outside the framework of "Well, this is what horses are here for." It's a strange yet palpable inconsistency.

[Beaelliott]

Alex... exactly as what Roger wrote... the knowing and not wanting to know. I think many of these people too do honestly have great concern for horses. But they have bought (without question) that horses fate must follow some pre-ordained path of abuse and worthlessness. The "old grey mare" kind of thinking... "putting one out to pasture"... and the hideous, although in this context, appropriate: "glue factory".

And I think it's true... that if your horse is going to die anyway, (sooner or later), and if it's had (in your mind) a "good life", and if it might cost you money to keep her alive or to let her have a vet assisted death... it becomes convienient to justify "giving her life a purpose" by killing her (for dollars), to "feed and cloth" someone. That's how they figure I'm sure... The profitably condones the "practicality". Suddenly, slaughter becomes a service, and all participants are equally guilt-free.

As with all genocide, I think these are crucial steps that feed the process. You make enough good reasons to avoid thinking about the evil... there is no reason (except ethics) to do otherwise...