Regarding the treatment of animals in animal-exploitative industries, the law almost invariably defers to "common industry practice."
What this report is really saying is that horseracing has a license to kill because one, it's a legal enterprise, and two, because a certain level of death is understood (and accepted) by all.
“After a thorough investigation and review of the evidence, the District Attorney’s Task Force did not find evidence of criminal animal cruelty or unlawful conduct relating to the equine fatalities at Santa Anita Park.” – LA County DA Jackie Lacey’s report on Santa Anita
And so ends the much-ballyhooed investigation into the now-infamous Santa
Anita spring (while the report covered fiscal year ’18-’19, it was prompted
by the 36 deaths earlier this year). Nothing – but some safety
“recommendations.” And we should not be surprised in the least. The key
words above are “criminal” and “unlawful,” as in nothing to see here,
according to California law. And technically, Lacey is right: These cruelty
laws, woefully inadequate as most are, are designed to protect only some
animals (i.e., our pets), while the others, unconscionably, are left to
twist in the wind.
Regarding the treatment of animals in animal-exploitative industries, the
law almost invariably defers to “common industry practice.” It’s why
factory-farmed animals can be dehorned, debeaked, docked, branded, and
castrated without anesthesia. It’s why breeder dogs can be kept in tiny
cages for their entire lives. It’s why grisly scientific experiments can be
conducted on primates. It’s why, for fear of the fully legal instrument of
torture, the bullhook, Ringling elephants were known to defecate upon
hearing their trainers’ voices. It’s why perhaps the most public form of
animal abuse – the rodeo – merrily persists with impunity. And it’s why you
can whip a horse at a racetrack but that same act done to a dog in the park
would land you in jail.
What this report is really saying is that horseracing has a license to kill
because one, it’s a legal enterprise, and two, because a certain level of
death is understood (and accepted) by all. Indeed, the DA said as much:
“Horse racing has inherent risks but is a legally sanctioned sport in
California.” Risks, like the risk of a snapped neck, severed spine, or
shattered leg. Risks, like the risk of “cardiovascular collapse” or
“exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage.” Risks, like the risk of terrifying
colic or excruciating laminitis. And risks, like the high risk of
exsanguination at career’s end.
Lacey added: “The District Attorney’s Office lacks legal jurisdiction to
regulate the horse racing industry.” So right back to the industry (as
represented by the CHRB) it goes – the fox guarding the henhouse, just like
those other animal industries.
On another note, I think it high time that every person and every
organization – PETA, HSUS, et al. – be made to answer this simple question:
Is horseracing wrong? Not are some parts of it wrong, but is it
fundamentally wrong? If the answer is no, fine, at least we know where you
stand (but please dispense forevermore with your hollow declarations of
equine love and specious claims of “advocacy”). But if yes, then act like
it. Stop issuing equivocal, confusing statements; stop “partnering” with
industry interests; stop debating the relative merits of various “reforms”;
stop compromising what are supposed to be your core values. If you deem
horseracing animal cruelty, then get off the proverbial fence and say so.
Enough already.
(One final note: In the report, the DA cited this passage from California’s
penal code: “[A]nimal cruelty exists when a person subjects any animal to
needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon the animal.” Well,
if $2 bets and entertainment does not meet the definition of “needless” or
“unnecessary,” I’m not sure what does.)