Frog, read the account here: http://thoroughbredchampions.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=0c22cc5db71d5401df572d97c9c77f1c&topic=30003.0 Doesn’t leave much doubt… :no:
That’s one of the things I’ve been wondering about too. At this point in time going to New Holland isn’t a guarantee of going to slaughter. I know a bunch of people who have bought horses there for personal horses (often at or even below the “kill” price). And then there are also rescues attending NH on an almost weekly basis.
Granted, them being in the kill pen does make a difference in this case, I think.
now a lot of rescues and people do go to new holland. but not long ago, it was the place that the meat man did a lot of business. i am glad to hear that people are buying horses for personal use. thanks god. those race horses deserve more than death. they have worked hard all of their lives.
AppJumpr08, I posted that link earlier today & my post removed. 
[QUOTE=ThisTooShallPass;3639317]
AppJumpr08, I posted that link earlier today & my post removed. [/QUOTE]
You posted it on the other thread, and I just snagged it to post here too 
Oh! embarassed
Well, at least the story is getting out amongst ALL the threads!
I read in another forum that trainers are sending their TBs to direct to slaughter holding farms, as well as using chemicals to make the tattoos unreadable. Very sad.
I think this is a very admirable policy which most racetracks are adopting. And I think, at the moment, there are enough rescues to handle the horses, but will there always be enough?
And does this new policy allow you as trainer/owner to make the decision of putting one down with dignity? I ask this only because some horses are not adoptable for the general public. Some horses may require expensive upkeep treatments such as joint meds which not all could afford. I mean should rescues be filled with 5yo box walking, cribbing, 2 arthritic knees, has to be turned out on it’s own, or can’t be turned out at all type horses? It’s a fact some of these don’t come right despite the fairytale endings you all want. I think these should be put down with dignity leaving a space for a horse who has a chance of getting a decent home.
We hear of rescues having to then be rescued because funds have run dry or funds have been misspent leaving other hard working rescues filled to capacity or over filled. Are tracks going to start more rescues funded by racing?
What happens if a year down the line a horse from one of these tracks ends up in a kill pen? Then what happens to trainer and owner? Maybe they did all the could to get said horse a good home and still it didn’t work out.
Look, I know most of you will come on here and just slam me away, and that’s fine. And while I think it is a very good policy, I think it’s a bit like the ban slaughter bill. Very good intentions but not well thought out. As in, now horses are shipped to Mexico and Canada for slaughter in more horrific conditions.
I am not in favor of slaughter, but I am in favor of quality of life over quantity of life. Ive said before anything I breed is welcome back to me at any stage and so far I have tabs on everything. I am able to deal with problems, as many of the rest of you are, that the general public may not be able to deal with. And I do believe if a horses problems are affecting his/her quality of life, I will put them down with dignity at home and know I saved them from a much more horrible fate if I gave them away for free. I consider this responsibilty.
Flame Suit On,
Terri
The zero tolerance policy has been enacted to prevent Suffolk horses from going to slaughter; it was not intended to prevent a horse’s connections from opting for humane euthanasia should the situation warrant.
Suffolk supports CANTER and the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation and continues to make financial contributions to both organizations.
Thanks for clearing that up. And believe you me, I do think it’s a very good policy and very much worth it.
Terri
They got what they deserved. They either knew what was going on; thought they were smarter or plain didn’t care. Good for Suffolk! The trainer quoted below deserves to be out of business…
“Suffolk Downs could blow up as far as I care,” Pompell said. “Neither of us had any idea they were going there. I shouldn’t be held responsible.”
She said she was not bothered by the banishment and that she never again would set foot on the grounds of Suffolk Downs.
“I’m out of the business,” she said. “I’ve lost all my horses. I’ve lost all my owners. They literally put me out of business.”
So very happy to see that Suffolk is backing up what they say. Good for them! I wish all tracks would do this.
Finally someone doing the right thing!
Good for Suffolk!!
Really impressed with Suffolk’s follow-through on this. Great policy and I hope we find, in several years down the road, that it has been truly effective and that their program is the flagship but no longer an excetion to how tracks opperate.
I’m really pleased about this policy, but have to play a little devil’s advocate here, because I’m not sure that it offers any protection for the well intentioned trainer who really does try to do the right thing, and what happens then?
Take me as an example. I bought a horse from Suffolk last year. Went down, looked at a bunch, talked to lots of trainers, grooms, everyone I met. Ok, there was one I tried to avoid. 
Anyway, ended up buying a horse as an event prospect, from a trainer who’d had him since he was a yearling, obviously cared a lot about him, etc. Bought him, drove down, picked him up, brought him home.
What did that trainer know about me? Nothing. He had no idea what I’d do with the horse, and certainly no control over it. And guess what? The horse didn’t work out, and I needed to find him a new spot 4 months later. Should the trainer have been banned from Suffolk based on my decision to send him down the road?
It never came to that because he and I both cared about the horse and worked something out, but what if the stars hadn’t aligned? That trainer tried his best to do the right thing - what if I hadn’t had the nerve to call him and tell him it wasn’t working out, or hadn’t had the money to put him on a van and send him south, or - better yet - hadn’t known that sending him to the area dealer would probably not be the right thing for him?
The policy is a little tricky if you play it out that way. I’m just not sure how that works. I’m not saying that there are some who shouldn’t be hung out to dry, and I know nothing about the people named in the article, but I guess I’m not so quick to judge.
Ssktnn: There is a distinct difference between casting off a horse and rehoming/selling in earnest.
People’s reputations tend to preceed them. I do think that’s a factor which would be taken into consideration should a horse, after having been legitimately sold/given away to a private home, turn up some time later in the kill pen. Keep in mind the five Suffolk horses rescued from New Holland last week ended up there just a few days after leaving the track, and prior to that no attempt had been made to place these horses in retirement with the TRF or through CANTER’s adoption program.
This banning sends out an important message loud and clear: ignorance is not an excuse.
The policy is not infallible. There are gray areas. At the same time, trainers and owners who ultimately don’t care where their horses end up also have the option of not returning to Suffolk next year.
Suffolk will continue to need the assistance of vigilant horsemen in order to intercede as it did in this case. And let’s be realistic, the policy cannot be intended to follow the horses for the rest of their lives. It is clearly intended to inspire the trainers to not transfer horses to dealers and transporters that would put a horse’s life at risk.
It is a horrific end for these horses that go to slaughter, and what does it say about the racing industry in general if they look the other way and horses continue going for slaughter? The business of racing needs to be involved with TB trainers and owners who try to get rid of horses in this manner. It is not good for racing.
[QUOTE=MintHillFarm;3645702]
It is a horrific end for these horses that go to slaughter, and what does it say about the racing industry in general if they look the other way and horses continue going for slaughter? The business of racing needs to be involved with TB trainers and owners who try to get rid of horses in this manner. It is not good for racing.[/QUOTE]
Many tracks have for some time worked with people and organizations to ensure horses are not ending up a rendering plant simply because they couldn’t go the first 1/4 mi in under 0:25. The NSA route has been pitched as a second chance in steeplechasing for those horses who perhaps never cared for running on the dirt.
That said the sport/business as a whole will always have some folks who are without morals, without remorse and will do the wrong thing because it’s cheap and easy.
The same is true in every walk of life. There are some scammers and cheaters on Wall Street and also on the beloved ‘Main Street’ too with cooked little business people. Teachers who embezzle, official who take bribes, and so forth.
As Barnfairy said nothing is foolproof and clearly if someone is bound and determined to move a horse off any track in the US - be it Saratoga or Zia Park - to eventually sell the horse for meat in Canada it will happen. The industry can only do so much to keep a deliberate and professed ignorant owner/trainer off track grounds.
The best steps are to ensure clear rules are known by all, proper vigilance to ensure a defined code of conduct is adhered too and constant education to eradicate the “I didn’t know that was an option” response after the fact.
Suffolk, Philadelphia Park, the Maryland tracks, etc. – all who forbid horses going to slaughter – have to also start at the base of the problem and continue to work on medication rules, track surfaces, continual tapping of joints, shock wave therapy overuse, better breeding, etc. or else we just become dropping off places for horses that have been used too much.
When some trainers know there is an outlet, like ours at Pha, or from the other organizations, it is all too easy to move one wrung out horse to caring non-profits, and move another horse into his now empty stall.
Unfortunately, it will be a slow change, but I think the proceeds from The Jockey Club’s new registration check off idea could help if the money were to be used at both ends of the problem. Just finding homes for “unwanted horses” will create more unwanted horses because we are all out there saving them and NOT enforcing policies to stop the huge numbers and encouraging trainers and owners to be responsible.
