NEWSHORSE RACING

On Monday, May 16th, the reality TV show Top Chef Canada aired an episode titled "The French Feast," during which one contestant was asked to prepare a dish using horse meat.

The inclusion of Mr. Ed on the menu has animal lovers rearing. As the show aired, a Facebook group sprang up in protest: "Boycott Top Chef — Protect the Horses." The group has already gained more than 5,600 followers.

In response to the backlash, Top Chef Canada also turned to Facebook to defend its use of the grisly meat. They issued a statement on their own page: "The challenge in this episode involves having the competitors create a truly authentic, traditional French menu. One of the most traditional French foods is horse meat. Horse meat is also considered a delicacy in many cultures around the world."

With the Kentucky Derby behind us, many people are now betting on whether or not Animal Kingdom, the winner of the Derby, has what it takes to win the Triple Crown. Others are saving their gambling for the poker table, and are instead thinking about the future of the horses.

Secretariat actor James Cromwell is one of those who are truly rooting for the horses. Cromwell has recently written to The Jockey Club urging it to adopt PETA's Thoroughbred 360 Lifecycle Retirement Fund.

PETA's proposed program would require horse owners to contribute $360 every time they register a new horse, and these fees would fund the care of retired racehorses. The fund could generate over 20 million dollars a year, and would be, as Ecorazzi put it: "like Social Security for horses."

There's no question that four-time Super Bowl winner Terry Bradshaw is a champion, but, vested interest aside, why is he talking up an industry in which even winners are losers: horse racing? Footballers can retire with money in the bank, but ten thousand castoff athletes who are thoroughbred racehorses will meet their end with a bolt to the brain this year alone. But first, they will have to travel in cramped tractor-trailers, all the way to Mexico or Canada, before they get the chop. For horses, who are high-strung and nervous to begin with, the stress of "killer" auctions and the journey to slaughter is a nightmare.

A few weeks ago, a PETA undercover investigator filmed inside the breeding barns at one of the world's most expensive thoroughbred breeding facilities. We documented a factory assembly-line regimen in which stallions "service" more than 100 mares each in a single breeding season. Nearly 25,000 thoroughbred foals will be churned out of those breeding barns this year alone. Given that only about 20 horses will run in the Kentucky Derby, where does that leave the rest?

A handful of former racehorses who used to be a part of the State University of New York at Cobleskill's Equine Studies Program are headed to a safer place, thanks to the work of Equine Advocates, a New York-based rescue organization.

Earlier this year, SUNY Cobleskill made plans to ship three of its school horses, used for teaching students the finer points of equine management, to an auction in Massachusetts. The problem is, so-called "unwanted horses" sold at auction far too often find themselves being shipped outside of U.S. borders, directly to a slaughterhouse, where they are killed, butchered, and sold overseas. Sadly, a lot of those slaughtered horses are former racing horses — it's a part of the seedy side of the horse racing industry that breeders would rather you not think about.

When Equine Advocates learned that SUNY Cobleskill was putting these three horses on the auction block, with who knows what kind of fate facing them, their response was quick and, probably, expensive. They bought all three horses from the college and found them new homes, where they can finally enjoy retirement in dignity.

It's too bad that what happens in Vegas doesn't really always stay in Vegas. This past week, the dubiously named "Summit of the Horse" took place at the Las Vegas South Point Hotel and Casino to plot how to make horse slaughter for human consumption legal again in the U.S.

Wyoming State Representative and Summit organizer Sue Wallis had hoped for an attendance of hundreds. Things didn't quite go as planned. It would almost be humorous if Wallis and friends weren't so hellbent on reviving horse slaughter. When the Appropriations process for 2012 starts in February, they plan to be there.

Before the Summit started, sponsors started dropping out ... as they learned that they were sponsors. Then there was the scandal surrounding a truck Wallis was going to raffle off; she decided she might not be able to come up with the truck and expected the ticket buyers to just let her keep the money. (That's just one in a list of ethics and frauds complaints against Rep. Wallis that Wyoming resident, Patricia Fazio, filed last month.)

The Summit opened to a crowd described as "sparse," with only a few dozen attendees, primarily ranchers and breeders. While Wallis had claimed everyone was welcome to the table, at least one slaughter opponent was pointedly uninvited.

State Representative Sue Wallis (R-Campbell) has publicly stated that she's forming a business, Unified Equine LLC, to slaughter horses and sell the meat within her home state of Wyoming. But isn't horse slaughter illegal in the U.S., you might ask? Technically, yes, but until the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act is passed, the ban is precarious.

And how convenient that Rep. Wallis happens to be in a position to promote legislation that would once again roll out the blood-red carpet for horse slaughter operations in her state.

This slaughter scheme smelled rotten to Wyoming resident Patricia Fazio, Ph.D., who filed a complaint (pdf) with state officials, alleging violations of ethics and securities fraud. Animal Law Coalition, Equine Welfare Alliance and Habitat for Horses Advisory Council are backing up Fazio's call for an investigation.

There's a long list of sketchy actions by Wallis around the horse slaughter issue, from soliciting charitable donations via an organization with a defunct tax status, to actually sponsoring bills that she'd personally benefit from.

Today, people across the U.S. will be picking up their phones and dialing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (202-225-0100 in D.C., or 415-556-4862 in San Francisco) to ask her to schedule a vote on the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act, H.R. 503. Her Senate counterpart, Harry Reid, could use a call, too, to get S.B. 727 on the floor. If you're on a roll, Animal Law Coalition has info on where to find other key elected officials — including your own — to spur them into action, too.

It only takes a minute to be a part of the National Call-in Day. Less than a minute to follow-up with an email to your representatives.

The Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act has been languishing in both the House and the Senate since March 2009. In the year and half since then, tens of thousands of horses have been shipped in brutal conditions across the border to be cruelly slaughtered for their meat. It's long past time that Congress stepped up and took the reins to protect horses.

On Monday, activists across Canada took to the street to protest the slaughter of horses. Many of the protesters painted their faces white and stuck rubber Halloween-type bullet wounds on their foreheads, with fake blood dripping from the holes, to call attention to how horses are often killed. One protester, Mary Parker, described footage from a slaughterhouse showing a man with a rifle shooting a horse three times in the head to kill the animal.

Slaughtering horses for food is legal in Canada. In 2009, nearly 94,000 horses were slaughtered in the Great White North. About half of those horses were shipped to Canada from the United States. Although the slaughter of horses has been banned in the U.S. since 2007, some states have been trying to re-open their slaughterhouses, and as long as the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act remains stalled in Congress, it's still legal to ship American horses for slaughter. International borders are no barrier to those wanting to make a few bucks from killing animals.

Much of the horse meat is exported to Europe and Asia, where the idea of people eating equines is not frowned upon. It probably should be, as horse meat can contain the chemical phenylbutazone, which can cause a toxic reaction in humans.

The number of American horses that are slaughtered is driven by a demand in some other countries for horsemeat, where it's usually a pricey delicacy. The demand has dropped dramatically over the years from a high in 1989 of 348,400 horses to 134,059 horses slaughtered in 2008. In 2009-2010, demand has dropped even more. In Europe, in particular, demand in the past year has dropped as consumers have learned of the shocking cruelty of horse slaughter in North America.

The demand for American horsemeat may soon plummet and end altogether, especially in the European market. Indeed, the second largest grocer in Belgium and Holland pulled American horsemeat from the shelves. 

But there's more good news for our horses and those calling for an end to the slaughter. Beginning July 31, 2010, the European Union will begin enforcing restrictions on the sale of meat from horses that have been given certain drugs and steroids. This means that, where horsemeat is destined for the E.U., Canadian or Mexican slaughterhouses (where U.S. horses are sent for slaughter) must obtain veterinary records of all drugs or medication provided to the horse in the preceding six months. By 2013, all horses to be slaughtered for human consumption in the E.U. must be accompanied by veterinary records from birth that show the horse has never been given banned substances.

This is impossible for American horses.

American horses are not tracked, and there is no way to know the drugs, ster

Sometimes, it's really good to be wrong. A couple of months ago, I wrote about the case of racehorse breeder Ernie Paragallo, who was accused, then convicted, of starving dozens of horses at his facility in New York. At that time, I said, "Unfortunately, in far too many cases like this, courts don't tend to impose much, if any, prison time."

Today, the judge in Paragallo's case handed down the max sentence, up to two years in prison and a $33,000 fine. I'm pretty happy to have gotten that one wrong.

The takeaway from this is twofold. First, the good news. Paragallo's case shows us that at least some judges get it right when it comes to taking cruelty and neglect seriously. Will Paragallo serve his full two-year sentence? I don't know; one presumes that there are provisions for good behavior. But, he's going to spend awhile in a cell, and that should send a message to other abusers out there.