Posts Tagged ‘american association of equine practitioners’
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010
Dr. Patricia Hogan, an accomplished veterinary surgeon who operates Hogan Equine in New Jersey and oversees the Ruffian Equine Medical Center adjacent to Belmont Park, understands that public perception is reality when it comes to equine welfare issues. When the American Veterinary Medical Association and American Association of Equine Practitioners came out in support of horse slaughter, Hogan said the organizations were out of touch with the general public’s views on animal welfare. Her criticism of those two groups has fallen on deaf ears.
Recently, Dr. Hogan turned her attention to the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, an organization that invested a great deal of time and money on the much-ballyhooed Safety and Integrity Alliance created in the wake of the tragic death of Eight Belles in the 2008 Kentucky Derby. The Alliance has a Code of Standards that, among other things, encourages tracks to provide for the aftercare of retired racehorses, but takes no position on horse slaughter. In fact, the last time anti-slaughter legislation went before Congress, commissioner and CEO Alex Waldrop wrote that the NTRA neither opposed nor supported the bill.
In a letter sent by Federal Express to Waldrop on Jan. 16, Hogan urged him to reconsider the NTRA’s neutrality on anti-slaughter legislation and not rely on the AVMA and AAEP leadership position as the NTRA’s compass on the issue. "I sincerely hope you will consider my request," Hogan wrote. "I only represent what so many people want to see happen in this sport–both the industry participant and the casual racing fan–we all want to see Thoroughbred racing survive and we cannot lose if we truly look to preserve the principles of integrity, decency, and those of equine welfare."
More than three weeks have passed, and Hogan has yet to hear anything from Waldrop or his staff, even after she followed up with a phone message to the NTRA chief.|
The lack of response begs the question: Is anyone home at the NTRA?
Following is the complete text of Hogan’s letter, reprinted here with her permission. — Ray Paulick
January 16, 2010
Mr. Alex Waldrop
NTRA
2525 Harrodsburg Road
Suite 400
Lexington, KY 40504
Dear Mr. Waldrop:
We have never met but in fact we have a great deal in common - we are both heavily invested in the Thoroughbred racing industry and we both share an obvious concern and dedication to see the sport survive. I ask that you please give me a few moments of your time and hear me out about an increasingly important issue burdening our sport.
I am a veterinary surgeon and I am fortunate enough to have the privilege of caring for some of the most valuable horses our sport has to offer. I also care for some of the least valuable - those horses that are no longer financial contributors to racing and therefore must either find an alternate career, or in too many cases, be shipped off to slaughter.
I work very closely with many retirement organizations but there is one in particular that you should know more about. It is the Turning For Home Program at Philadelphia Park and we have made a very tangible difference there- a difference for the racetrack, for the horsemen, and most of all, for the horses. Everyone wins in this program. The track shows the public that it cares about its "product" enough to institute and support a program, the horsemen now have options in order to comply with the anti-slaughter policy put forth by the racetrack, and the horses gain a second chance to serve a useful purpose. It is a great example of how members of our industry are approaching this problem effectively at the grass-roots level. I am currently working on setting up a similar type of program in New York following the recent announcement of NYRA’s strong anti-slaughter policy. We are planning to connect NYRA, my affiliate hospital, Ruffian Equine Medical Center, and New Vocations, a well-established Thoroughbred retraining/placement organization together to provide the same type of network to address this issue. My point is that it can be done and it is being done throughout our industry. Wouldn’t it be to the NTRA’s advantage to be ahead of the story rather than trying to catch the train that has already left the station?
Surely the NTRA has reached a point where the obvious "writing on the wall" is at least visible, if not legible. Animal welfare issues are absolutely at the forefront of the public’s concerns. Thoroughbred racing has never been under more intense scrutiny by the public and we just cannot afford to appear complacent or indifferent. Does it not say something to the NTRA that many of its member tracks have now independently instituted some very strong anti-slaughter policies? If these tracks can recognize both the financial and public relations value of that policy as being relatable to their own livelihood and bottom line, why cannot the NTRA see that as well and provide the leadership in that arena?
I urge you to not let the pro-slaughter position taken by the leadership factions of the AVMA and AAEP continue to be your compass on this issue. Please don’t allow their special interests to become yours. I am a long-standing member of both organizations and although they serve their purposes within my profession, they do not dictate my politics or my ethics. It is important to note that it is only a very small percentage of AAEP veterinarians who are actually involved with Thoroughbred racing - the vast majority of the membership is involved with the pleasure horse industry and therefore have little to lose in regards to issues with public perception and slaughter. Yet the racing industry has, by far, the most to lose here.
I am asking you to please reconsider your neutrality on this vital issue and at least take a stand for the Thoroughbred racehorse. I am not asking you to come out politically against the anti-slaughter bills - just please consider taking care of our own interests. Those of us working in the trenches, so to speak, need your leadership on this issue. We need you to recognize that the slaughter of Thoroughbred racehorses is simply not acceptable. If the public sees that we are actively working to resolve this important welfare issue in our sport, then we as an industry will be all the better for it.
I sincerely hope you will consider my request - I only represent what so many people want to see happen in this sport - both the industry participant and the casual racing fan - we all want to see Thoroughbred racing survive and we cannot lose if we truly look to preserve the principles of integrity, decency, and those of equine welfare.
If I can personally be of service in any way to get this moving in the right direction, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will use whatever resources I can provide to continue to support a resolution to this very important issue.
Respectfully,
Patricia M. Hogan, VMD
Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Surgeons
Tags: aaep, alex waldrop, american association of equine practitioners, american veterinary medical association, avma, equine welfare, hogan equine, horse slaughter, National Thoroughbred Racing Association, NTRA, ntra safety andintegrity alliance, Patricia Hogan, patty hogan, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, ruffian equine medical center Posted in Horse Slaughter, Horse Welfare, National Thoroughbred Racing Association | 59 Comments »
Friday, January 1st, 2010
By Ray Paulick
When the committee that doles out Eclipse Awards of Merit or Special Eclipse Awards announced the other day that Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation founder and longtime chairman Monique Koehler would be a recipient of a Special Eclipse Award next month, my first thought was, “What took so long?”
But then I remembered this is an industry predicated on past performances, and the past performances suggest that recognition of people and organizations dedicated to the health and welfare of retired racehorses comes reluctantly and over time.
I first became aware of the TRF more than 20 years ago, some five years after Koehler started the organization in 1982. I was working for a Thoroughbred publication and was asked to come up with a list of potential story ideas to be used for upcoming features. I called some friends in different parts of the country looking for ideas and one of them told me about this fascinating operation based at an upstate New York prison that took in retired racehorses and stabled them at the prison, where inmates would care for them. It was a proverbial win-win situation: good for the horses, good for the rehabilitation of the inmates.
When I suggested to the editor that a feature on the TRF be considered, I thought for sure I’d get two thumbs up. I was stunned when he told me, “Oh, we can’t do that. We don’t want people to find out what really happens to all those horses when they’re done racing.”
It was my first exposure to one of the sport’s dirty little secrets, that ex-racehorses often wind up in a slaughterhouse somewhere, destined for a dinner plate overseas, or perhaps as food for a dog or other animal. Turns out the glue factory was more than a cliché.
Monique and the TRF’s longtime executive director, Diana Pikulski, have fought hard for the organization’s mission to be recognized, much less accepted, in the Thoroughbred media and by the industry they have done so much to help. As the TRF grew, admitting more horses into a prison program that expanded to other states and to satellite farms, the struggle became an economic one of how to feed and care for the thousands of Thoroughbreds retired from the racetrack each year.
Gradually, they picked up important advocates, like the late John Hettinger, whose money, influence and outspoken passion for the cause advanced the TRF and its mission. Many similar organizations popped up around the country, but the TRF to this day remains the largest national charity devoted to helping retired Thoroughbred racehorses.
Critics, including, ironically, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, an organization also devoted to the health and welfare of horses, have pooh-poohed the TRF and similar organizations, saying their efforts to save horses represent a drop in the bucket when compared to the total number of unwanted Thoroughbreds. But should the fact that not all Thoroughbreds can be saved from slaughter or neglect prevent rescue and retirement organizations from saving those they can, and often placing them in second careers as performance or pleasure horses?
I don’t think so, and I believe the AAEP has been on the wrong side of this issue for many years. (Disclosure: I served on the AAEP board of directors in a non-veterinary “industry seat” for three years where I tried to be an advocate for rescue/retirement groups. I currently am a member of the TRF board.)
The efforts of Koehler, Pikulski, Hettinger, web publisher and horseman Alex Brown and many others have raised awareness to this issue, and some of racing’s largest institutions now recognize that supporting racehorse retirement is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do for the industry’s tarnished image among the general public.
Along the way, trainers like Nick Zito, Todd Pletcher, Gary Contessa and the late John Russell stepped forward as advocates, along with owners and breeders like Gary Biszantz, Madeline Auerbach and the late Trudy McCaffery (there are many more who have stepped up). Numerous breeders and stallion farms have supported fundraisers through the donation of stallion seasons.
Richard Fields, the majority owner of Suffolk Downs, showed tremendous leadership when instituting a policy at the New England racetrack banning trainers who dump horses into auctions where the animals usually are destined for slaughter. Churchill Downs and Magna Entertainment developed policies and positions of support for racehorse retirement, and most recently the New York Racing Association adopted a policy and pledged funds to assist the retirement of horses. The Jockey Club has taken a strong position of support, and that was a most significant development.
There are holdouts, including the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, whose silence and lack of leadership on the issue is a sore spot with many people. But as Monique Koehler knows more than anyone else, these things take time.
So rather than criticizing the committee that took more than a quarter of a century to recognize Monique Koehler for starting a national movement that represents so much that is good about the people in this industry, I say “thank you” to the organizations that voted her this award: the Daily Racing Form, National Turf Writers Association and even the NTRA.
More importantly, if they could talk, the thousands of horses that have been or will be saved as a result of Monique’s tireless dedication and advocacy would say thank you as well.
The best way you can thank Monique is by supporting the TRF through a donation. Click here to learn more about the organization and here to make a donation.
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Liberation Farm celebrates the many horsemen and horsewomen who strive each day to make things better for horses and those who work with them. To learn more about Liberation Farm, click here.
Tags: aaep, american association of equine practitioners, churchill downs, diana pikulski, eclipse awards, gary biszantz, gary contessa, Good News Friday, john hettinger, John Russell, liberation farm, Madeline Auerbach, Magna Enterntainment, monique koehler, National Thoroughbred Racing Association, New York Racing Association, nick zito, NTRA, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, special eclipse award, suffolk downs, The Jockey Club, Thoroughbred Retirement Foudnation, todd pletcher, Trudy McCaffery Posted in Good News Friday, Horse Welfare | 13 Comments »
Monday, February 23rd, 2009
I didn’t expect to be roundly applauded by the leadership at the American Association of Equine Practitioners when I suggested last week that their white paper, entitled “Putting the Horse First: Veterinary Recommendations for the Safety and Welfare of the Thoroughbred Racehorse,” while well-intentioned was a bit naïve in its call for uniformity in an industry that has a track record of staking out uncommon ground.
Among those who took exception to what I wrote about the “AAEP’s Kumbaya Paper” was Dr. Rick Arthur, a former AAEP president and currently medical director for the California Horse Racing Board. Arthur was one of 35 veterinarians who developed the white paper over a period of months.
Arthur gave up a well-established private practice at Southern California racetracks to take the CHRB position in 2006, and he has been a prominent and outspoken advocate for horse health issues in his role as medical director.
The views he presents are his own personal opinions and do necessarily represent those of the AAEP. – Ray Paulick
By Rick M. Arthur, DVM
Sure, there is some Kumbaya in the AAEP’s white paper, just like the recommendations from every other group that has looked at the issues. But to say the AAEP’s white paper doesn’t address what we know best shows an astounding lack of understanding of how horse care at the race track works. Horse racing’s veterinarians are the people who clean up the messes horse racing leaves behind. Just as physicians see parts of the human experience that are not pretty and so do veterinarians in horse racing.
How do the AAEP White paper recommendations relate to what we know best, “ the care of horses?” Let’s look at a few examples:
* A period of rest for all horses to provide an opportunity to refresh and diminish the volume of persistent cyclic loading that occurs in the absence of rest.
* No horse shall be permitted to race within 10 days of its last start.
These are really the same issue. Over 90% of all racing fatalities show evidence of pre-existing pathology at the site of their catastrophic injury. These are repetitive stress injuries. Veterinarians are saying give the body time to heal. Where is this outside of what veterinarians know best?
* Every horse entered to race shall be on association grounds in sufficient time to have a pre-race veterinary inspection for racing soundness by the regulatory veterinarian.
*Standardization and enhancement of pre-race and post-race veterinary examinations with mandatory cross-jurisdictional sharing of information.
These are the same issue. Horses should have proper pre-race veterinary inspections; not all do. Is it possible veterinarians see horses racing that shouldn’t be on the track?
* In those jurisdictions that practice it, racetrack management must discontinue the coercion of trainers to enter horses according to stall allotment.
Could it be veterinarians are seeing unfit and sore horses entered to simply fill racing cards? If you think this is out of our area of expertise, you are mistaken.
* Uniform participation by all jurisdictions in injury reporting for both racing and training injuries.
Veterinarians have been driving this issue for years. The numbers are worse than horse racing wants to face. To solve a problem, you have to understand the scope of the problem. Is there a question whether this is a veterinarian issue?
* Development of continuing education and accreditation programs for owners, trainers, stewards, jockeys, grooms, starters, farriers, veterinarians and security personnel.
There is no entity in horse racing which understands or does CE better than the AAEP. In fact there are few professional organizations anywhere that do.
* Claiming (all of it)
Is there a veterinarian at the track who hasn’t seen first-hand how claiming negatively impacts horse welfare? If you have any doubt, spend any entry day with any race track veterinarian.
* Medication
The AAEP white paper endorses a number of fundamental changes in horse racing medication. Encouraging collaboration between the RMTC and IHFA is an enormous step as are many of the other medication recommendations.
As for joint injections: this issue was discussed. What is the right answer without adequate research? Just Say No would have been Kumbaya. The RMTC has announced a major research effort towards glucocorticoid drug testing research which should lead to profound changes on how intra-articular injections are regulated.The AAEP supports the RMTC. The veterinarians on the Racing Task Force know this issue well; well enough to know it is complicated and complex.
* The key to successful implementation of these medication recommendations is increased racetrack security to promote enforcement and achieve uniform compliance.
Horse racing veterinarians are calling for increased security. Hey, you’re right, what do veterinarians know about the need for better backside security? When did they go to the police academy? Or maybe everyone should sit up and ask what are horse racing veterinarians seeing as they spend all day on the backside to cause them to recommend more backside security?
One last point: Sorry, banning the dying practice of pin-firing will never save one horse. I can’t remember if it was ever discussed.
Thirty-five veterinarians worked on the AAEP White paper and all contributed. This is a pretty good first step even with the Kumbaya.
The AAEP understands the issues facing horse racing and is ready, willing and able to work with the industry to help move equine welfare and racing integrity forward.
Sign up for our Email flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Tags: aaep, AAEP white paper, american association of equine practitioners, California Horse Racing Board, CHRB, chrb medical director, Horse Health, Horse Welfare, kumbaya, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, rick arthur Posted in Horse Health, Horse Welfare, Regulatory Issues | 27 Comments »
Wednesday, February 18th, 2009
By Ray Paulick
Whenever I think about horse racing’s crazy-quilt regulatory system that has ruling bodies in 38 different states, I recall the time an official at some racetrack asked Hall of Famer Bill Mott to show his trainer’s license before entering a restricted area. Mott reached into his Wrangler’s and pulled out what appeared to be a full deck of laminated playing cards, held together by a rubber band wrapped around the outside.
“It’s in here somewhere,” Mott said, fumbling through individual licenses for Florida, New York, Kentucky, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Texas, Illinois, Delaware, Virginia, Louisiana, and maybe even his home state of South Dakota, among others.
Uniform licensing is a concept the industry has been working on for, oh, 50 years or so. They still haven’t got it figured out. In this regard, owners, trainers and other licensees are subjected to some of the most ridiculous regulatory inefficiencies any industry has ever seen. Why?
I thought about this absurdity as I read the racing industry’s latest “white paper,” this one authored by a well-intentioned group of equine veterinarians at the American Association of Equine Practitioners that suggests we all follow their recommendations, pull together, and work in concert for the overall good of the industry.
The average meaningful life of a Thoroughbred industry white paper is about 10 to 14 days – or at least it used to be. That’s about how long it took for the weekly trade magazines to dutifully detail the highlights, and then mail the magazine to their subscribers. The typical reader reaction was a collective yawn. They know how the industry works … or doesn’t. The lifespan of an industry white paper might be shorter today, given the access to the information on various Web sites.
For those who haven’t seen the AAEP treatise, it’s called “Putting the Horse First: Veterinary Recommendations for the Safety and Welfare of the Thoroughbred Racehorse.” Click here to read the entire nine-page report.
For those who want the abbreviated version, here it is: 1) the AAEP believes it is “imperative that the industry urgently demonstrate an ability to affect sweeping change without government intervention”; 2) we need to hold hands and sit around a campfire singing songs until we can reach agreement on issues related to the welfare of the horse 3) horses should not be permitted to race without at least 10 days between starts; 4) some racing secretaries are evil and racetrack management is increasingly clueless about horses; 5) more study is needed in the areas of racing, training and selling 2-year-olds; 6) adopt new whip rules; 7) keep holding hands and singing campfire songs; 8) it’s no longer acceptable for owners to heartlessly discard ex-racehorses, and it’s imperative that all jurisdictions establish and support rehabilitation, retraining and adoption agencies 9) claiming races need reform, with purses no more than 50% higher than the claiming price, drug testing of all claimed horses, and claims for horses that fail to finish a race being voided; 10) develop and adopt uniform rules, penalties, drug testing protocols, violation reporting procedures (stop me if you’ve heard this one before); and 11) keep singing and holding hands, and will someone please throw some more logs on the fire?
This industry is amazing, if for no other reason than for its ability to clear its throat and harrumph when the situation is dire. Since Eight Belles died on the track at Churchill Downs and we celebrated the highs and lows of Big Brown, an anabolic steroid-pumped Kentucky Derby winner (surely not the only one), we have had more task forces, committees, blue-ribbon panels, and alliances than we’ve mustered up before in this short a time. We’ve had the Jockey Club, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, and now the American Association of Equine Practitioners sounding off (and I know I’m forgetting some of the other alphabet soup orgs).
And still, Bill Mott has a pocketful of racing licenses. If we can’t do the simple things, what makes the AAEP or any other group think we are going to convince 38 state racing commissions that a $12,500 purse is too high for $8,000 claimers, or that a horse needs 10 days off before racing again?
Let’s look at the first premise of the AAEP’s white paper, that we need to “urgently demonstrate an ability” to make change without government intervention. Haven’t we had enough chances to demonstrate our ability to do so? (I enter Bill Mott’s expired trainer’s licenses into evidence.)
Why and how has the AAEP, a group of veterinarians, taken it upon themselves to state that we must do this without government assistance? I suppose if they were involved in the cattle or poultry or peanut business, they’d suggest we would be better off producing meat and other foodstuffs without interference from the United States Department of Agriculture.
The point is, we need government to help us overcome the dysfunctional regulatory structure that has led us to this mess we are in. We just need to be able to be part of the process, and not be in the adversarial role many in this industry are setting us up to be in. If we repeat the mantra that “government is enemy, government is enemy,” how do you think government is going to respond?
So with all due respect to the AAEP and its veterinarians, please stick to what you know best. In fact, this white paper completely ignores what vets know best, which is the care of horses. Nowhere in the white paper are there recommendations on such procedures as pin firing of shins of young horses, or permitting horses to race just days after receiving joint injections. To be fair, AAEP executive director David Foley said further recommendations will be forthcoming, but should those recommendations have come first, so that their own house is in order?
Tell us what you think about the chances the AAEP’s white paper recommendations will ever be implemented. Read the full report. Take our poll on the left-hand column of the Paulick Report home page, and leave your comments in the space provided below.
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Sign up for our Email flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Tags: aaep, AAEP white paper, american association of equine practitioners, anabolic steroids, Big Brown, bill mott, claiming races, david foley, drug testing, drugs in horse racing, eight belles, Horse Racing, Jockey Club, National Thoroughbred Racing Association, NTRA, Paulick Report, putting the horse first: veterinary recommendations for the safety and welfare of the thoroughbred racehorse, racing regulations, racing secretaries, Ray Paulick, Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, TOBA, uniform licensing, uniform rules Posted in Horse Health, Horse Welfare, Industry Organizations, Industry Reform, Medication, Regulatory Issues | 54 Comments »
Thursday, September 18th, 2008
By Ray Paulick
National Thoroughbred Racing Association CEO Alex Waldrop said his organization neither opposes nor supports a U.S. House of Representatives bill that would criminalize transportation of horses with the intention they be slaughtered for human consumption. A letter from Waldrop expressing the NTRA’s neutrality was entered into the record on Wednesday by Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) during a markup hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on H.B. 6598, known as the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008.
The bill, introduced in July, is sponsored by Democratic Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers of Michigan and 11 other House members.
In his letter to Congress, Waldrop said the NTRA supported 2003 anti-slaughter legislation, which failed to pass. He did not reference support or opposition to current legislation before the House (H.B. 103) and Senate (S.B. 311) that would prohibit slaughter and transportation to slaughter plants.
Those bills will prohibit slaughter, while H.R. 6598 criminalizes transportation of horses to slaughter plants for human consumption by amending federal criminal law and calling for fines and imprisonment. There currently are no slaughter plants operating in the U.S., the two in Texas having been shut down by a court ruling and a plant in Illinois shuttered after a state law was passed. There has been an increase in the number of horses being transported across the borders into Canada and Mexico, however, and this law provides enforcement for federal officials to end that. Horses confiscated would be under the jusisdiction of the attorney general, who, according to the bill, “shall provide for the humane placement or other humane disposition of any horse seized.”
Waldrop’s difficulty in supporting or opposing the bill stems from the makeup of the NTRA membership, which is funded in part by organizations such as the American Quarter Horse Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners, which have opposed anti-slaughter legislation.
Passage of the bills seems a longshot with time running out during the current session of Congress.
Following is the text of Waldrop’s letter, citing the NTRA’s neutrality and concerns with the bill:
Dear Representative:
It has come to my attention that the House Judiciary Committee plans to mark up H.R. 6598, the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008. As you may know, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA) has previously supported another bill to ban the slaughter of horses, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (H.R. 857), introduced in 2003.
We are now examining H.R. 6598, but have reached no decision as to whether we would support or oppose this legislation. After an initial review, we have some concerns with the bill and potential unintended consequences, notably that:
- The bill would require the Attorney General to provide for the humane placement or other humane disposition of any horse seized in connection with an offense under this section. As an organization deeply involved in the care of horses every day, we have concern that this requirement (for the Department of Justice, with no known capacity to care for seized horses) could result in improper treatment.
- Simply adding criminal penalties – while not providing procedural guidelines or funding for the care and treatment of abandoned horses – will likely only exacerbate the situation. While supporters of this bill might believe that adding criminal penalties would cure the problem, it could easily make it worse.
These are but a few of the questions that we and our members are examining.
With all due respect, I believe that prior legislation dealt with this issue in a more comprehensive way, was designed to address some of the possible unintended consequences that we find troubling, and was on the whole better legislation for horses and horse owners. We continue to examine this legislation but these concerns remain.
Finally, several anti-slaughter advocacy groups, including the Humane Society of the United States and Animal Welfare Institute, listed the NTRA as supporters of this legislation before consulting us. We trust that they, and any other third party with whom you may have spoken relative to the NTRA’s position, have clarified that they claimed our endorsement before discussing our concerns with them. Our association takes no position on this bill at this time.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: aaep, alex waldrop, american association of equine practitioners, american quarter horse association, animal welfare, anti-slaughter legislation, aqha, bob goodlatte, congress, h.b. 103, h.r. 6598, horse slaughter, john conyers, judiciary committee, National Thoroughbred Racing Association, NTRA, prevention of equine cruelty act, s.b. 311, u.s. house of representatives, u.s. senate, unwanted horse coalition, unwanted horses Posted in Congressional Hearing, Horse Slaughter, Horse Welfare, Industry Organizations, Industry Reform, National Thoroughbred Racing Association | 42 Comments »
|
|