Adding a non-slaughter "X" to Equine lip tattoos

[kenwoodall2]

Should an "X" be added to Equine lip tattoos indicating "Not to be slaughtered"?
The TRPB does the tattooing and has access to the tracks. Should they offer a designated day of the week at each track so the owners can have an "X" added at the end of the tattoo indicating the horse is not to go to slaughter?

[The Judge]

If a horse doesn't get an " X" then it must be O.K to turn "that one" into dog food.

I get the point however and I think something similar can be worked out.

[kenwoodall2]

If a horse doesn't get an " X" then it must be O.K to turn "that one" into dog food.

I get the point however and I think something similar can be worked out.
OK is now the stance of AQHA and other breed organizations. This idea is voluntary but once an "X" is made it is permanent and readily IDs those not to go to slaughter. Maybe more owners would be willing to do that. I guess also anyone can brand the horse with a "NS" (Non-Slaughter) and the same effect. The Canada and US govts can make laws outlawing slaughter of any Equine marked either way.
SIMPLE and PERMANENT is the main idea. I'm open to other ideas.

[Fager Fan]

Should an "X" be added to Equine lip tattoos indicating "Not to be slaughtered"?
The TRPB does the tattooing and has access to the tracks. Should they offer a designated day of the week at each track so the owners can have an "X" added at the end of the tattoo indicating the horse is not to go to slaughter?

How does an X on a tattoo take away the legal property rights of the owner of a horse?

I'm against horse slaughter but don't understand at all this proposal as it's unenforceable, and if it's unenforceable, then it's a meaningless proposal.

[KingChas]

I worked with yearling standerdbreds years(ages) ago.
I had the unfortunate job of using the twitch to control these babies while they were tatooed.
Some of the babies actually went to their knees,not good memories for me.
I know it's part of the game.
But I was shocked.
Don't know if they tatoo like they did in the past,but thats the closest thing to animal cruelity I have ever seen "live".

[kenwoodall2]

How does an X on a tattoo take away the legal property rights of the owner of a horse?

I'm against horse slaughter but don't understand at all this proposal as it's unenforceable, and if it's unenforceable, then it's a meaningless proposal.
As of July, 2010 it is unenforceable, just like the "no slaughter" notation on a horse's medical record; But records do not go to the auction house or slaughterhouse with the horse. Tattoos do go with the horse.
There is now the Law of Bad Publicity as soon as the first ex-racing horse of any breed with an "X" at the end of the tattoo is slaughtered. Then the bad PR is on the person who sold the horse at auction, on the kill-buyers, and the slaughter houses.
The USDA would enforce any such Federal law, after rescue groups find the "X" and put a hold on the horse, maybe with Humane Society help have the horse removed.

[Fager Fan]

As of July, 2010 it is unenforceable, just like the "no slaughter" notation on a horse's medical record; But records do not go to the auction house or slaughterhouse with the horse. Tattoos do go with the horse.
There is now the Law of Bad Publicity as soon as the first ex-racing horse of any breed with an "X" at the end of the tattoo is slaughtered. Then the bad PR is on the person who sold the horse at auction, on the kill-buyers, and the slaughter houses.
The USDA would enforce any such Federal law, after rescue groups find the "X" and put a hold on the horse, maybe with Humane Society help have the horse removed.

Tattoos currently go with the horse.

You're suggesting we lobby congress to not allow horses marked with an X to be sold to slaughter buyers, but it's ok to sell the ones not marked with an X?

You're suggesting we lobby congress to declare that horses marked with an X aren't the full property of the current owner but that a former owner can dictate property that is no longer his?

[FenceBored]

Tattoos currently go with the horse.

You're suggesting we lobby congress to not allow horses marked with an X to be sold to slaughter buyers, but it's ok to sell the ones not marked with an X?

You're suggesting we lobby congress to declare that horses marked with an X aren't the full property of the current owner but that a former owner can dictate property that is no longer his?

Not trying to take sides here, but if someone applies for and gets on a historic home registry that impacts what future owners can do with the property.

[Fager Fan]

Not trying to take sides here, but if someone applies for and gets on a historic home registry that impacts what future owners can do with the property.

True, but I don't see how that would extend to horses (or any animals). With the historic registries, the owner at the time applied to have the structure declared historic and then subsequent buyers know of the structure's designation when they purchase it.

Regarding horses, I don't see how one can fight for some legal rights of horses that don't extend to all horses. What makes the Thoroughbred deserving of some special designation that other horses don't receive? It's certainly not their qualification as a rarity that has to have protections to avoid its extinction.

I really do appreciate that we have people who care about the horses as I'm a big sucker for the horses and all animals. But I'm noticing that a large percentage of these people don't come up with real solutions, meaning they pass all tests legal and workable and supportable. They also show a lack of understanding of racing, medications, horse health, and the finances of racing and care of the horse.

For example, I hear that a trainer is currently being targeted as "bad" by the horse-welfare people (for lack of a better word to describe this loosely-knit group) because he took a horse who had a fracture and after shockwave treatment (and time off) brought the horse back to the track. These people thought shockwave treatments are some terrible abuse, that the horse is essentially being electrocuted.

So on one hand they're doing some good things and on the other they're dangerous in their lack of knowledge and sense of equine and financial reality.

I'm not saying that this particular topic-starter falls into the latter camp but she clearly tossed out there a solution that is a non-solution. My purpose in my posts is to challenge those who obviously have a good heart to think through their suggestions and opinions to get to real, workable solutions and thorough, fair opinions.

[joanied]

If for some reason a horse that has owners wishing the best for him, not going to a kill sale or ending up going for slaughter in any way happens to miss getting that X tatoo, then that horse might end up heading for slaughter...they would have to set up a program so as to be certain ALL horses have the X tatoo...I don't think something like that is possible.
The bottom line is that what happens to a horse, TB or otherwise, lays solely upon his owner.

I do have an idea that might work though...micro chips. Every registered horse would have to get a micro chip...this way at the very least, his owner information would stay with him where ever he goes.
Would something like that work?

[Fager Fan]

If for some reason a horse that has owners wishing the best for him, not going to a kill sale or ending up going for slaughter in any way happens to miss getting that X tatoo, then that horse might end up heading for slaughter...they would have to set up a program so as to be certain ALL horses have the X tatoo...I don't think something like that is possible.
The bottom line is that what happens to a horse, TB or otherwise, lays solely upon his owner.

I do have an idea that might work though...micro chips. Every registered horse would have to get a micro chip...this way at the very least, his owner information would stay with him where ever he goes.
Would something like that work?

We still have the problem with enforceability. Someone has to scan the microchip at the auction and say "We can't sell to buyers A, B, & C" who take horses to Canada or Mexico for slaughter. Under what law are they going to be forced to take that position?

[kenwoodall2]

We still have the problem with enforceability. Someone has to scan the microchip at the auction and say "We can't sell to buyers A, B, & C" who take horses to Canada or Mexico for slaughter. Under what law are they going to be forced to take that position?
Fed law now saya an equine can have injuries when loaded into a kill-buyer's truck, but not injured en route to slaughter- Talk about unenforceable (because the main problem is no medical record. Now the EU requires 6 months' medical record for horses shipped from NA to EU (Bute etc. in meat banned).
Stories of no-kill promises and contracts being ignored are out there. If a racehorse buyer says it will not go to slaughter, why not put an "X"? At the very least it is giving +PR notice that racing and some private owners are serious. An easy, low-cost, good PR solution that will save an unknown number of at least a few horses. Would an "X" have saved Ferdinand? I guess only if the Japapnese have a long tradition of wanting to save face.

[kenwoodall2]

http://awionline.org/ht/d/sp/i/11222/pid/11222. This link has a Canada slaughter mgr saying the less bad PR the better. Also, a successful breach of contract case against buyers breaking a non-slaughter promise with 2 horses.

[WinterTriangle]

Micro-chipping is certainly less draconian than branding/tatooing animals. I mean, this IS 2010. A microchip costs $20 bucks.

"a number of countries around the world already microchip Thoroughbreds, including Great Britain, Ireland, France, Japan, Germany, South Africa, and Australia."

I don't know why we don't do it. Tatoos are hard to read on older horses as they do fade just like tatoos on people.

http://www.equineline.com/registry.cfm?page=dotRegistryHelpDeskMicroFAQ&CFID=945390&CFTOKEN=77484298

We still have the problem with enforceability.

That is correct. Nobody at the kill pen is going to pull a horse from slaughter unless they believe they are being filmed or something. Besides, they aren't the ones who get written up in newspapers. So, intervention has to happen BEFORE a horse is put on a meat wagon.

as for making "owners" responsible, Joanie, which owners? TBs often go thru many owners.

Best case scenario, TBs bred for the racetrack are microchipped with the express implication of no slaugher. No *X* is necessary. Every track should have an org. who can interface to get OTBs off the track into other careers. Or, whatever other arrangements can be made to collect a $ in some racing fee or whatever they do where programs already exist. The responsibility is shared that way. (I daresay I could live with takeout if I knew that extra % ----that now feels like being robbed---- was put to GOOD USE.)

Anyway, with proper planning, it is quite workable. Meat wagons should be personna-non-grata on the backside of our tracks.

I do however, support euthanasia in the case of horses "too far gone", who would be in pain for life, etc. but of course no well-cared for horse should get to that point because they have veterinary care in their barns. So the vet would be making that call, (not some creep pulling a meat-wagon behind the shedrow who stands to make a lousy $200 or less off the horse by sending it to a kill pen, right??????)

Just as in the case of dogs, I see no point in "warehousing" red-zone aggressive can't-ever-be-adopted dogs. They are a liability to the society, and many "go crazy" anyway after a long years inside a cage at some rescue warehouse.

ANd, finally, a well organized OTTB org would get the "crazies" and PETA types out of the picture. You'd be taking away their ammunition.

[Fager Fan]

http://awionline.org/ht/d/sp/i/11222/pid/11222. This link has a Canada slaughter mgr saying the less bad PR the better. Also, a successful breach of contract case against buyers breaking a non-slaughter promise with 2 horses.

What contract? Horses aren't sold at auction with any property-right restrictions on them. Neither are they sold through the claiming ranks with any property-right restrictions. If you find someone who's signed some contract with this stipulation, you just found someone who isn't likely going to send the horse to slaughter.

[Fager Fan]

Best case scenario, TBs bred for the racetrack are microchipped with the express implication of no slaugher. No *X* is necessary. Every track should have an org. who can interface to get OTBs off the track into other careers. Or, whatever other arrangements can be made to collect a $ in some racing fee or whatever they do where programs already exist. The responsibility is shared that way. (I daresay I could live with takeout if I knew that extra % ----that now feels like being robbed---- was put to GOOD USE.) PETA types out of the picture. You'd be taking away their ammunition.

Where does the microchip or X come in? You don't need either to work on ensuring horses don't go to slaughter, you just work with all Tbs, just as is being done now. Horses with a microchip or X are no more deserving of ensuring they don't go to slaughter than one who wasn't microchipped or Xd.

[WinterTriangle]

Where does the microchip or X come in? You don't need either to work on ensuring horses don't go to slaughter, you just work with all Tbs, just as is being done now. Horses with a microchip or X are no more deserving of ensuring they don't go to slaughter than one who wasn't microchipped or Xd.

Maybe I'm not reading you, FF, or vice versa. I was speaking about microchipping in PLACE OF tatooing. Not a special microchip for non-slaughter purposes. I agree with you that no *extra* ID is required.

In other words, I answered "no" to the poll about having a "X".


The microchips (and/or tatoos) are of course necessary on the track, but also useful not just during their careers but because of people who have gotten an OTTB and have no idea what the horse's history is. A database, and some way to track, seems like a no-brainer?

As for all TBs, I don't follow other equestrian sports so I'm not able to talk about them (polo, dressage, fox hunting, show jumping, etc.) and don't know what kinds of stuff they can do in 2nd careers or how their rescue orgs work.

[Fager Fan]

Maybe I'm not reading you, FF, or vice versa. I was speaking about microchipping in PLACE OF tatooing. Not a special microchip for non-slaughter purposes. I agree with you that no *extra* ID is required.

In other words, I answered "no" to the poll about having a "X".


The microchips (and/or tatoos) are of course necessary on the track, but also useful not just during their careers but because of people who have gotten an OTTB and have no idea what the horse's history is. A database, and some way to track, seems like a no-brainer?

As for all TBs, I don't follow other equestrian sports so I'm not able to talk about them (polo, dressage, fox hunting, show jumping, etc.) and don't know what kinds of stuff they can do in 2nd careers or how their rescue orgs work.

The purpose of the tattoo is so that the horse identifier can read the tattoo of the horse in the paddock and determine it's the proper horse. This requires eyes and a clipboard.

A microchip would require a scanner and computer.

I don't know that the current way is insufficient and requires a wholesale implantation of microchips in horses and a new system at all tracks necessitating scanners and computers in the paddock.

I definitely don't see how it would help horse rescuers who can currently lift up a lip and see it's an off-track Tb (and later look up the tattoo number with the JC if they want). Instead, they're going to carry around a scanner and laptop? And for what purpose? Someone needn't know exactly who the horse is in order to save it from the kill buyer.

[speed]

Should an "X" be added to Equine lip tattoos indicating "Not to be slaughtered"?
The TRPB does the tattooing and has access to the tracks. Should they offer a designated day of the week at each track so the owners can have an "X" added at the end of the tattoo indicating the horse is not to go to slaughter?


I spent last night in front of a mirror. I checked under my tongue, inside and around my entire mouth. Not an X to be found. Then i realized you said equine.

[5k-claim]

The purpose of the tattoo is so that the horse identifier can read the tattoo of the horse in the paddock and determine it's the proper horse. This requires eyes and a clipboard.

A microchip would require a scanner and computer.

I don't know that the current way is insufficient and requires a wholesale implantation of microchips in horses and a new system at all tracks necessitating scanners and computers in the paddock.

I definitely don't see how it would help horse rescuers who can currently lift up a lip and see it's an off-track Tb (and later look up the tattoo number with the JC if they want). Instead, they're going to carry around a scanner and laptop? And for what purpose? Someone needn't know exactly who the horse is in order to save it from the kill buyer.

Hi Fager Fan,

I think using microchips (starting with whatever crop and moving forward) would be a preferable alternative to tattoos. This article (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/288163.html) shows a picture of what a scanner might look like. There is no doubt the device could made to easily download and store the identification information. Why on earth would a computer in the paddock be necessary?

Two practical uses in the paddock would be:

For a horse with a faded or just plain 'bad' tattoo (I had one whose tattoo looked like a Rorschach Test), it would mean less time fooling around trying to make out the numbers- and more accurate readings.
One less thing for a slightly psycho horse to freak out about in the paddock (as long as the scanner doesn't come with an ultra-loud beep it would definitely be better than wrestling with a crazy horse trying to get his lip pulled up).


Tattoos fade. This is why I bet the Jockey Club does as many "like" (as in wildcard) searches on tattoos as anything else when people call them up for identifications, and can only "sort of" make out what the tattoo is.

I think the chips would be more accurate and less dangerous in the paddock, and longer lasting throughout the rest of the horse's life. The cost also appears to be nominal.


.

[nearco]

Why would you need a computer?

Tatooes... identifier flips the the upper lip, checks that the tattoo matches the number on the clipboard.
Microchip... identifier passes the scanner over the horses neck and checks that the number returned matches the number on the clipboard.
Where does the computer come in?

Microchips don't fade, and waving a scanner is less intrusive than grabbing the lip of an excitable horse. Scanners are inexpensive, a couple of hundred bucks, even having two, one plus a backup, is hardly going to break the bank for tracks. On the front end, injecting a microchip is much less traumatic for a horse than having a big wade of inked needles punched into it's lip.

[Fager Fan]

My mistake about the scanner actually outputting right there the registration number. Given that, it does seem it could be easier than a tattoo.

As for the use of it for anti-slaughter purposes, that I still don't understand.

[kenwoodall2]

My reading of TBred rescuers says that they just look for any lip tattoo on a Tbred, then try to to buy them. My tattoo idea of a permanent mark in this case is that chips, branding. or lip tattoo is permanent (tattooing and "X" would occur at the track close to retirement, voluntary by the last racing owner for the horse) So the tatoo may not be too old.
Horse auctions want as little publicity as possible in America because any PR they get is bad! So if "X" racers are sold to kill buyers, each such sale would result in bad PR. Even if those were sold to rescuers at a discount (50% of what rescuers normally pay- $300 or so-) more can be saved, especially those not intended for slaughter. And those cases would be investigated more than others- maybe those who put them up for auction would think twice- especially if they cannot get a good enough price.
Everything in racing does not HAVE to go through the state boards and become law. Many programs racing in doing for the welfare of horses- my 15 leg warning signs, injury reports, track accreditation- can catch on and and are workable.

[5k-claim]

My mistake about the scanner actually outputting right there the registration number. Given that, it does seem it could be easier than a tattoo.

As for the use of it for anti-slaughter purposes, that I still don't understand.

I am not sure about the anti-slaughter purposes, either. (Which is why I voted "No" on the poll.) I am just 100% behind anything to make life easier and safer in the paddock.

The anti-slaughter problems I see are exactly the ones you already pointed out: how to enforce it, how someone can put restrictions on future owners, and how to give racehorses rights that other horses (including other thoroughbreds that didn't happen to get close to racing) wouldn't have.

All of these questions at least point out more advantages to having chips supplement the official foal papers as opposed to tattoos. Right now the only horses getting tattoos are the ones who have made it through training and are close to racing, so that leaves out a lot of horses who aren't going to make it to the races but are still going to be out there having other careers and changing hands, etc. Advantages of the chips are that all of the horses can get one during their registration (whether they get close to racing or not), the reading can remain accurate throughout the horse's life, and database information connected to the chip can remain current.)

I know a lot of horses that leave owners along the way who say "Now, if this horse ever gets to the end of your rope and you can't manage it, don't let the killers have it- we will take him back and figure something out." This offer only makes it as far as the next owner. Once the horse has changed hands a couple or three times, that offer from the original owners is lost in the clouds. With a database and a chip, there could be a field in the record called the "End of the Rope Contact" who could be anyone in the horse's life who is willing and able to help the horse out financially in an emergency. Even groups of people like here on this forum could pool together and enter their name on some horses, "just in case".

This isn't going to solve slaughter issues, or cast a safety net over every single horse. But even rescuers could appreciate having a current "End of Rope Contact" number that they could instantly look up with a scanner to help alleviate some of their work and free up their resources for horses who don't have such a contact from the horse's past who is already willing and able to help financially.


.

[kenwoodall2]

I am not sure about the anti-slaughter purposes, either. (Which is why I voted "No" on the poll.) I am just 100% behind anything to make life easier and safer in the paddock.

The anti-slaughter problems I see are exactly the ones you already pointed out: how to enforce it, how someone can put restrictions on future owners, and how to give racehorses rights that other horses (including other thoroughbreds that didn't happen to get close to racing) wouldn't have.

All of these questions at least point out more advantages to having chips supplement the official foal papers as opposed to tattoos. Right now the only horses getting tattoos are the ones who have made it through training and are close to racing, so that leaves out a lot of horses who aren't going to make it to the races but are still going to be out there having other careers and changing hands, etc. Advantages of the chips are that all of the horses can get one during their registration (whether they get close to racing or not), the reading can remain accurate throughout the horse's life, and database information connected to the chip can remain current.)

I know a lot of horses that leave owners along the way who say "Now, if this horse ever gets to the end of your rope and you can't manage it, don't let the killers have it- we will take him back and figure something out." This offer only makes it as far as the next owner. Once the horse has changed hands a couple or three times, that offer from the original owners is lost in the clouds. With a database and a chip, there could be a field in the record called the "End of the Rope Contact" who could be anyone in the horse's life who is willing and able to help the horse out financially in an emergency. Even groups of people like here on this forum could pool together and enter their name on some horses, "just in case".

This isn't going to solve slaughter issues, or cast a safety net over every single horse. But even rescuers could appreciate having a current "End of Rope Contact" number that they could instantly look up with a scanner to help alleviate some of their work and free up their resources for horses who don't have such a contact from the horse's past who is already willing and able to help financially.


.
Changing private owner- even if there is important medical history, will the prospective private owner get access to and use the reader, let alone to search for no-kill restrictions? "Lip tattoo when they get close to racing." So where would the trying to add an "X" come into play while in the paddock for a race? This extra "X" would not be added during the pre-race paddock doings- it would involve the TRPB tattoo technician coming to the track say once a month and tattooing the "X" to whichever horses the last racing owner wants, after the last career race. The X would not have any bearing on the horse returning to racing.

[kenwoodall2]

"http://search.comcast.net/?cat=Web&con=ttsearch&q=horse+freeze+branding+popular" Special branding iron ($20+); less cost if buying sets; need special bucket and liquid nitrogen; do not need special technician, but some state have special laws relating to ownership brands, but using s freeze mark "X" should not violate any laws since no particular ownership is indicated, just the no-slaughter wish! What do you think? I like the idea of freeze-branding an "X" better than adding a lip tattoo letter!

[5k-claim]

Changing private owner- even if there is important medical history, will the prospective private owner get access to and use the reader, let alone to search for no-kill restrictions? "Lip tattoo when they get close to racing." So where would the trying to add an "X" come into play while in the paddock for a race? This extra "X" would not be added during the pre-race paddock doings- it would involve the TRPB tattoo technician coming to the track say once a month and tattooing the "X" to whichever horses the last racing owner wants, after the last career race. The X would not have any bearing on the horse returning to racing.

Hi Ken,

Sorry for the confusion! I had two different topics muddled together there.

The various owners that the horse changes hands to throughout its life may or may not get access to a scanner (through a vet if nothing else), but it doesn't really matter unless the horse finds itself in dire straits someday. And at that point I am not even thinking in terms of legal restrictions, just instant access (via the scanner) to a list of people who have volunteered that they may be in a position to help. Hopefully the horse will live out a happy life with owners who can manage and it won't even matter.

All I meant by lip tattooing "close to racing" is in the weeks leading up to its first race (or whenever it is arranged with the tattoo man), after it has shown that it is probably going to make the races. It has nothing to do with trying to do tattoos in the paddock. (The only thing I think about the paddock is that using chips to supplement the official foal papers would be preferable to using tattoos for the same purpose.)

I definitely wouldn't count on the last owner in the chain at the racetrack to arrange for an extra "X" tattoo, even if it was free.

Unless I am misunderstanding your proposal, why wouldn't all owners just have the tattoo men just go ahead and put the extra "X" on the end of the horse's tattoo when it is originally done? Why wait? Wouldn't this just result in roughly 100% of all tattoos having the extra "X"?

The difference is that instead of owners who can't carry on or rescue workers finding a faded tattoo with an ubiquitous "X" on the end of the tattoo- with a chip they might have a shot at quickly identifying some actual people (or groups) from the horse's life who have volunteered that they may be in a position to help.

Where would all of the horses saved by the "X" tattoo go? Or what about the ones that don't have the "X"?

FREEZE BRANDING: This is at least more conspicuous than an "X" tattoo if there are any covert film crews shooting videos.

I do like the general direction you are moving in, Ken!

.

[joanied]

It could not be easier to microchip a horse. It's already been said, but indeed, tatoos fade, tatoos are cruel, and I've had experience in the paddock with revved up horses not wanting their lips curled back, and have seen my hsare of the tatoo guy trying to see the tatoo and check it against his list.

And, it seems the Jockey Club agrees with my suggestion of microchips (which I didn't know until just now...I looked it up)

http://www.jockeyclub.com/mediaCenter.asp?story=214

http://www.equisearch.com/horses_care/health/rescue/chipbrand_021505/
Exerpt:
Microchip technology has improved through the past two decades to offer chips the size of an uncooked grain of rice that are easy to implant and safe for the horse throughout his life. The tiny computer chips each contain a unique identification number that can be read by a scanner through radio frequency signals; those numbers are registered to the animal's owner at the time of microchipping.
Injecting a microchip is simple enough that any horse owner comfortable with giving inter-muscular antibiotic or vaccination injections should have no trouble with the procedure. However, rules vary from state to state, with some states working toward making microchip injection legal by veterinarians only. The chip is small enough to fit into a hypodermic needle, and is injected on the left side of the horse's neck, halfway between the poll and withers, into the ligament about an inch below the base of the mane.

The cost of an individual chip ranges from $15 to $25. Most veterinarians charge $20 to $30 to implant a microchip. No sedation is required.

The scanner, a hand held device, is all that would be needed in the paddock.

Seems pretty damned simple and inexpensive to me.

[Fager Fan]

"http://search.comcast.net/?cat=Web&con=ttsearch&q=horse+freeze+branding+popular" Special branding iron ($20+); less cost if buying sets; need special bucket and liquid nitrogen; do not need special technician, but some state have special laws relating to ownership brands, but using s freeze mark "X" should not violate any laws since no particular ownership is indicated, just the no-slaughter wish! What do you think? I like the idea of freeze-branding an "X" better than adding a lip tattoo letter!

Let's say I'm a guy who thinks slaughter is fine and has in my possession a horse with an "X". What do you think is going to stop me from selling that horse to a slaughter buyer? It's not going to be the "X" because I don't care if there's an "X" on him. I want the $300 and the horse out of my barn.

[Linny]

I am a huge advocate for property rights but I do think that there should be a status "RETIRED FROM RACING" that could be recognized. Just as sale of a historic property must come with legal disclosure (ie: you may not build a post modern house on the porch of this plantation) of restrictions under penalty of legal action, so must disclosure of retirement of horses.

First, horses are not houses they are sentient creatures, able to to suffer as a result of human indifference. Second, when horses that are unsuitable for racing are entered and compete they not only endanger themselves but other horses (someone elses property) and all the riders in the race.

If an owner wants to retire a horse yet be sure he never races again, I'd like the status to be official. If somewhere down the line someone buys him and requests papers from the JC I'd like them to state "RETIRED" on them. If the guy was sold the horse as a race horse, let him sue the seller for non disclosure or fraud. The owner who decides to geld a colt forever limits what future owners may do with him. Advertisements for a GELDING for sale make it clear that you cannot breed him.
The JC now allows a tattoo search, for free to anyone. Anyone looking to buy a horse would be able to look him up to verify his racing status and to not do so would be akin to not making sure that that "breeding stallion prospect" had all his parts.

As for the X tattoo, I'm not sure how it could work. After all, how many tattoos are checked at auctions, other than by rescues? Also, lets say you pull one out with an X, where does he go? Without papers it's hard to determine who is or would be responsible for him.

[kenwoodall2]

Didn't get his name, but he said microchipping is a better idea than tatoo or freeze marks, but auctions would only refuse to sell to kill buyers based on a mark or chip if the law, but that they honor current owner's request not to sell to kill buyers. They said last racing owner turning horse over directly tp rescue organization is the best idea.

[5k-claim]

....
If an owner wants to retire a horse yet be sure he never races again, I'd like the status to be official. If somewhere down the line someone buys him and requests papers from the JC I'd like them to state "RETIRED" on them. If the guy was sold the horse as a race horse, let him sue the seller for non disclosure or fraud. .....

Hi Linny,

The Jockey Club does have this. It is called "Sold Without Pedigree" and is irreversible. Link to another comment. (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=933600#post933600)

I don't think the form is online, but they will send out copies.


.