Tuesday, December 29, 2009

TO: All HRI Readers:

The following is in response to a letter received from Stephen Quesenberry Esq., attorney representing David Cattoor, objecting to the portrayal of his client as someone who acted unethically in the pursuit of his profession.

Specifically, this responds to, and addresses the opinions expressed by HorseRaceInsider contributing writer, Marion Altieri, in her blog “The Alpha Mare.� It has been alleged that Ms. Altieri’s statements defamed Mr. Cattoor’s character.

The charge that Ms. Altieri misrepresented her opinion as fact we don’t believe to be accurate. Blogs, by definition, are opinion pieces and need not be identified specifically as opinion, per se. It is, indeed, the nature of Internet postings.

However, we do regret, and apologize for, any damage it might have caused Mr. Cattoor, personally or professionally. Neither HRI, nor myself, as its executive editor, know these statements to be either true or false.

The error here is that of HRI’s executive editor failing to sufficiently explain to Ms. Altieri the nature of paraphrasing information posted elsewhere on the Internet, whose sources may or may not be free of bias or error.

When contributors are brought on board, the HRI executive editor explains from the outset that it will not be responsible to edit copy or fact-check, but only to suggest or approve possible storylines for publication.

This public apology is in lieu of a press release to be disseminated among our “subscribers.� HRI is not a subscription-base web-site, nor does it sell products to sustain its existence. It exists only as a forum for the free expression of ideas.

Once again, HorseRaceInsider regrets and apologizes for any harm that the piece, “Wild Horses and the Right to Run Freely--Even In Montana� might have caused Mr. Cattoor.

In order to consider this matter closed and free of any subsequent legal remedy, this apology will be displayed in good faith for a period of 72 hours on the HRI lead page, unusually long in that format.

Further, it will be displayed for a period of 30 days directly on Ms. Altieri’s blog, “The Alpha Mare.� The story “Wild Horses and the Right to Run Freely--Even in Montana,� has been permanently removed from this web-site.

Respectfully,

John Pricci, Executive Editor
HorseRaceInsider.com


From Marion Altieri:

I wish to go on record that a blog which I wrote about recent activities in Montana regarding the Pryor Mountain herd of wild horses contained my opinions about Mr. David Cattoor.

I should have framed my opinions as just that: opinion.

Because I did not represent them thus, my opinions were interpreted as statements of fact, which they were not. I paraphrased several times when I should have quoted with citations.

I am sincerely sorry for any grief which this has caused Mr. Cattoor and hope that he will accept my apology in this public forum.

Marion Altieri


Write/Read Comments (5)

Share

Monday, December 07, 2009

Rachel Alexandra is Horse of the Year…’Cause…it’s for THIS Year, Folks.

Stepping out of my usual zone, no ranting about anything tonight...just a reasonably logical reminder that voting for Horse of the Year is for the CURRENT calendar year.
Which many voters and fans are forgetting... OK, I'm confused. It seems that many of the hard-boiled, almost stereotypically cynical Turf Writers (see William H. Macy's performance in "Seabiscuit") have turned into a big, collective pile of goo and sentimentality. The same guys who told me that I'd never make it as a racing writer because I "…write like a girl…" are cooing like a bunch of 'tweens at a Jonas Brothers' concert. Dewy-eyed, they gaze at Zenyatta as if she's the Surprised Kitty (the darling little mite whose video has eight million hits to-date on YouTube). (Make no mistake: I love the Surprised Kitty, but this is horse racing, not tickling a four-ounce kitten.)

For those of you who've been on vacation in Burma; in a coma or otherwise not been exposed to any media, whatsoever, since September: at this moment in time, Thoroughbred racing can boast of several spectacular horses in our ranks, and two have risen to the surface as being The Best and The Next Best.

One of them, the mighty, versatile Rachel Alexandra, got there because she:

* won five Grade 1 races, as opposed to Zenyatta's four;
* won eight stakes races, whereas Zenyatta won five;
* traveled way outside of her familiar home court—barnstormed, really—racing at seven different tracks in six states—like the touring company of "Cirque du Soleil" and consistently went outside her comfort zone;
* beat males thrice (as opposed to Z's one co-ed run;
* smashed records for time and lengths virtually every step of the way. Rachel's average margin of win was eight lengths. Zenyatta's average was 1 ¼ lengths;
* beat seemingly-insurmountable odds to achieve those wins, including a miserable 13 post to win an American Classic race, the Preakness, in a speed duel;
* beat Macho Again—a great horse, possibly the fastest in the country—and a field of older males—to win the Woodward in the single-most thrilling race I have ever witnessed live;
* Yes, Zenyatta won more money this year than Rachel Alexandra, but only because the Breeders' Cup Classic has a bloated purse. If all races won by both horses offered comparable purses, Rachel Alexandra would be the higher-earner of the two. Money earned means nothing, but if you're going to count that figure, you have to consider the
* Beyer Speed Figures. I'm not a huge fan of Beyer, but we're stuck with 'em. And since we are, even the most hard-core of Zenyatta fans must acknowledge that, time and gain, Rachel Alexandra presented more speed than Zenyatta, consistently and without breaking a sweat.

And the most compelling argument, put forth by Brian Zipse in his insightful, well-researched blog (http://zipseatthetrack.blogspot.com/2009/11/10-reasons-why-rachel-alexandra-is.html) ; Mark Hoffman (http://hickoryhillhoff.blogspot.com/) and David Grening on DRF (http://mossblog.typepad.com/debateblog/) :

Zenyatta's win of one Breeders' Cup Classic does not negate all the historic wins that Rachel Alexandra racked up in the same year. The BC Classic, as both gentlemen point out, is not the definitive race. (Horrors! Did I just blaspheme?)

And I might add—whom except the Board and marketing machine of the Breeders' Cup says that the Breeders' Cup is all that important? They say it's The Ultimate, so it is? I think not. (Especially in light of the questionable politics that permeate BC policies. The fact that Belmont lost the BC this year to Santa Anita, after an agreement had been made to host the event at Belmont, was disgraceful. For a track to host the BC two years in a row, the sole purpose being to slap New York racing in the face—the Breeders' Cup lost all credibility with me.)

(N.B.: The slippery slope commenced last year, when the BC moguls moved all the races for fillies and mares to Friday—when no one's watching—and named the Friday, "Ladies' Day"—and made me sick. The fact that the Distaff was renamed, "Ladies' Classic" enraged me and many other racing fans. By definition, horses can't be ladies. And unless human women are running the races, then the race is horribly misnamed. "Ladies' Classic" sounds like a razor. Giving the race that name completely diminishes the value of the race, and dishonours all the great horses who won it in the past [and present].)

Zenyatta has a hot following because she's a great horse, a superhorse, indeed. I admire her, greatly. She's won 14 in a row—but that includes 2008. The Turf Writers who vote on the Eclipse Awards are NOT supposed to take last year, any year prior to the current one, into consideration when voting for ANY BC honor.

If we can count achievements of past years into consideration, then I heartily recommend Secretariat. Or Seattle Slew, Alydar, Whalebone, Waxy—or how about the Darley Arabian? The list of horses who boasted of spectacular, breathtaking and record-breaking careers in years prior to 2009 is endless.

The fact is that Zenyatta left her comfort zone but once, to trek to Oaklawn for the Apple Blossom--but again, that was in 2008. This bit of information is actually pretty telling. She ran a fabulous Breeders' Cup Classic in 2009—but she was on her home turf. Home field advantage. Where was the challenge in that?

Zenyatta raced but once on dirt, in Arkansas. She then beat a fast retreat back to the warm California sun and her familiar polynonsense surface. The thought that she raced but once on dirt makes me sad, really. Horses have run their brains out on dirt for four million years, it's as organic to them as their own blood. To think that the big Z. wasn't given the chance to really enjoy dirt, to connect to that ancient relationship between the Horse and real ground--says more about her connections than about the horse, herself.

I feel sorry for her—and, given the fact that the polynonsense at California tracks hosts so many fatal breakdowns—I pray daily for her and every horse who races west of Nevada. If Thoroughbreds are hothouse flowers, thought of as being fragile and in need of "special conditions"—how much more "fragile" is a horse whose hooves have massaged Gaia's belly but once? The fact that she never stepped onto a New York track, or Churchill Downs, to take on Rachel Alexandra will leave us forever wondering. Why her connections prefer polyick is beyond me. If dirt, which God made, is bad—how is it that silicons which leech into the water system, and possible carcinogens, are better? The polycrap in California killed more horses in two weeks in 2009 than all 36 days of dirt at Saratoga. The cushion concept means nothing if the results are worse than that which was replaced. Not my opinion, documented statistic.

I'm delighted that both horses being considered for Horse of the Year are females. They're both big, strong, brilliant—but only one of them deserves the honour. Only Rachel Alexandra went above-and-beyond to race the brightest and the best; went outside her division against so many stars, on so many different surfaces; so fast, so determined; so many times.

For Eclipse Award voters to vote Zenyatta over Rachel Alexandra—or for fans to pressure voters—is based purely on sentimentality. And I'm as sentimental as they come when talking about horses. But the outcome of this contest is supposed to be determined based on statistics.

Yes, Zenyatta won 14 in a row during the course of two years. This is spectacular. Yes, she won the Breeders' Cup Classic, and put on a great show in so doing. But the validity of the Classic is debatable, at best—and certainly not the only race that counts during the course of a race year. (If it is, why bother to put your horse in any race other than the BC Classic?)

Zenyatta's 14 consecutive wins were achieved over the course of two years, and as we know—but only 2009 can count when deciding Horse of the Year. If voters forget this simply because they're all starry-eyed about Zenyatta and have allowed that crush to cause them to forget the warhorse in our midst, the filly who breathes fire and fells opponents with grit, determination and frightening speed—then we need to institute a new method of determining Horse of the Year and all the Eclipse winners. If voting is a matter of personal taste or because one owner is liked better than another, is or isn't in the Old Boys' Club with the "right" people—then the voting is unfair, and needs to be tossed out as the method of determining winners.

If facts don't dictate the outcome of the vote, if voters are all acting out of an emotional connection—then the Eclipse Awards are also invalid. This isn't supposed to be a popularity contest—and the Turf Writers who told me that I write like a girl would be the first to say that it's all about facts and statistics.

And if it's not about just the facts, Ma'am—then maybe I have a chance, after all, of being welcomed into the National Turf Writers' Association. (Thanks to Rachel Alexandra, doing something "...like a girl" has become a good thing. Woodward posters encouraged the world to follow Rachel's lead and RUN LIKE A GIRL. Tres cool.)

So maybe writing like a girl isn't such a bad thing.

Still, I'd rather write like a girl than vote like one.



Write/Read Comments (20)

Share

Thursday, October 15, 2009

They Eat Horses, Don’t They?

A rise in horse theft in southern Florida has left many owners terrified and angry—and their horses hacked up on the side of the road. More than a shame, more than a sin, this is a crime. A federal offense, in fact.

On October 7th, 2009, writer Nadia Wynter reported in The New York Daily News that the Miami-Dade police have discovered a large black market industry in South Florida, the magnitude of which they'd not been aware. No, it's not cigars. Not sugarcane. Not, not, not—rum, ganja or woven blankets.

Horse is the New Black in Miami-Dade. Black Market, that is.

Yes, apparently the delicate palates of the South Florida community have spoken, and caballo is being served up, still steaming with the heat of recently-extinguished Life, right out of the stall—at $20 to $40 a pound. I speculate that haute cuisine restaurants will soon feature the overpriced delicacy, if the federal government doesn't step up to the proverbial plate and do their jobs—that of prosecuting the thieves-cum-butchers, soon.

In the dark of the night—for lawbreakers always ply their respective trades in the shadows, out of the harsh glare of the light—someone, or rather, many someones, are stealing horses right out of their barns and butchering them up, on the spot. No anesthesia, no sweet and gentle death before being cut-into: the barbarians who commit this heinous crime slice into the sides of horses as the horses' hearts are beating, their anxious lungs breathing. Apparently the anguished screams of pain produced by their victims have no affect on these monsters.

Someone whose pet has been butchered and eaten is not a happy person. The owner is saddened, yes, but also enraged: their rights as the owner of their companion animal have been ripped from their hands by someone who is selfish and has no boundaries. If you'd steal another person's pet, kill and eat it—it's not a far leap to the kidnapping and killing of their child. It's a much-documented fact that for anyone who has the hardness of heart to torture and murder an animal who is weaker than themselves—torture and murder of humans is not far behind.

If you can steal a horse and cut it up, alive, you are no higher up the food chain than a coyote, marauding a farm in your quest for a free chicken dinner. In lieu of chicken, the coyote will gladly tear apart your pet cat.

The coyote, at least, has the excuse that he must depend on his wiles in order to live. Coyotes are, by nature, predators—and, as such, we come to expect this behavior. To say that "they can't help themselves" is absolutely true: they do not operate by logic, reasoning or the obedience to law. Compassion is not their strong suit. They get hungry, they kill something. Easy math.

But for humans to hunt down and kill the horse who belongs to someone—or a wild horse, for that matter, who belongs to God—and butcher that horse, cutting its flesh from its side while it's still alive—is nothing short of barbaric. It's behaviour that marks the butcher as being sub-human—not animal, for the animals have unwritten rules of engagement. Anyone who would butcher a horse alive to sell the meat is a lowlife: there is no punishment that is adequate for such a twisted soul, unless we wish to do the "eye for an eye" thing. If that's the case, the owner whose rights have been wrenched from their hands get to hold aloft a large, long, sharp blade and gut the human predator while in an enclosed space. Let's say, a 12' x 12' stall.

If there's a special room in Hell for those who torture animals, these Floridians will get a front-row seat. But I am too eager to wait until they are dead to know that they are punished for their sins. I want to see them captured, tried and incarcerated. Now. (Although, in the culture of crime that thrives on violence, one can speculate that Darwin's theories will prove out, and that these peons will soon be picked off by those higher up the chain in their circle of evil.) I'd hate to wait until Natural Selection eviscerates their wretched souls: I want the federal government to step in. I am putting out a call for the United States Attorney General to hunt down these disgusting lawbreakers; arrest them and try them for violation of federal laws.

But What Federal Law is Being Broken?

Before we get to this revelation, we should investigate the phenomenon that is occurring only in Florida; the reasons why and why local and state laws won't stop this transaction of sin from taking place.

As reported by The New York Daily News, horse meat sells for $20 to $40 a pound—a price that demands to be seen in perspective to other culinary delights. Lobster comes in at around $15 a pound. Filet Mignon is similarly priced. A good Surf 'N Turf at a decent restaurant costs about $40, including all the courses.

Now, for the same price in South Florida, you get one pound of Uncooked Dead Horse in a filthy plastic bag: no questions, no trimmings. (And of course, the purchaser can be assured that it is dead horse: it is unthinkable to entertain the notion that someone who would rip a horse's vocal chords out with a knife would lie, because lying is a sin.)

A question that has been given an uneasy—at least, politically incorrect—answer is, "Who is buying this expensive, illicitly-obtained, meat?" Is it someone's old Grandma with a hankering? Young, upstart chefs, willing to crack a few eggs and break a few laws in order to offer their clientele the latest in hot (as in, stolen) cuisine? For whom are these killings occurring? It's obvious by the way that the horses' corpses are hacked up that it is not a crime fueled by anger, revenge or any other emotion. This is strictly business—and business is lucrative, because horses are being butchered even as I write this.

A Cultural Craving

The reports coming from Florida indicate that the rise in the theft and butchering of horses is related to the Cuban taste for horse meat. South Florida is only a breath away from Cuba: the majority of immigrants into the southern end of the state come from the oppressed island nation, or have ancestors who made the brave journey. In Cuba, as in many European countries, horse meat is not only a regular part of the menu—it has been a cultural mainstay for many generations. No doubt in the Americas since the 16th Century, when the Spanish Conquistadores brought horses over to the New World.

This statement is not politically correct, but it's not intended to be an ethnic slur, either. The fact of the matter is that, in American society—and in every society where the rights of individuals are treasured, and the sale or giving of property is the right of said individual—whether an animal is a pet or livestock, it is the right of the human who owns said animal to determine who is next in possession of that animal.

Going into a man's barn and murdering his horse utterly violates this right of ownership. Period. It doesn't matter what your cultural tastes dictate—if it's wrong, it's wrong. And regardless of where you live or originate—stealing someone's pet, killing and eating it is not only merely unacceptable—it's vile, immoral and illegal.

My own Italian ancestors ate mortadella, a cold cut made from horse meat. ("Mortadella," in fact, is slang for "dead horse" in Italian.) I have some Korean friends—but it has never crossed my mind that they might steal Pam's dog, Molly, kill her and barbeque her. South Americans are fond of guinea pig—but Petsmart isn't fearful that they'll be robbed at night by crazed Peruvians, looking for a plump, juicy C. porcellus for Sunday supper.

It makes us squirm when someone names a specific group of people as the probable perpetrators of a crime. To say that Florida's horses are being stolen and butchered by Cubans or those who sell to them isn't a popular statement—but it appears to be the Truth. The Cuban love affair with the delicacy that is horse meat has given rise to the blatant disregard for the property of Floridians, for this meat certainly isn't being inspected, freeze-dried, packaged and sent to France.

We must not allow ourselves to jump into that mire of prejudice, to believe that all Cubanos are doing this. A few individuals, who may or may not be Cubano, are committing these crimes. It may be another group of people who have no scruples and realize that the Cubano palate craves horse meat. Money is money, and for anyone who would act out such a horrific crime, all that matters is that someone is willing to pay the price. We must not allow ourselves to paint the scene with a broad brush, and state or even believe that all people of Latin American extraction are involved, in any way. The Thoroughbred industry employs thousands--perhaps even hundreds of thousands--of good-hearted, hard-working people from Latin America and the Caribbean. The majority of these employees are the ones in the trenches with the horses: feeding, grazing, hotwalking, grooming, developing relationships, loving and healing horses every day and night, 365 days a year. They must not be accused of a sin of which they are not guilty: they are, in fact, the first line of defense in the life of a horse. They would be the first ones to fend off anyone who would injure or otherwise imperil the lives of the horses in their care. No, this crime happens to cater to a Cuban culinary desire--but it is neither all Cubans nor any other group of Latinos who are doing the deed. And the many must not be made to pay for the sins of the few.

Why Should the Law Intervene?

This crime is not simply a matter of one bad man invading the space of one good man. It is not "a private matter." In the spirit of John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism, the law seeks to protect the greatest number of people, for the good of the many. This means that individuals or cultural groups of people may not get to eat everything they love—but, also in that spirit of the best good for the most people—other groups are also deprived, for the sake of creating community. The Cubans can't have horse meat, but neither can my Italian cousins in Providence.

In other words: it may be Cubans who are committing this crime. And all cultures have culinary tastes that sound strange or distasteful to other cultures. But regardless of what the criminals or a certain segment of society wants—they are not allowed to do it because if everyone was allowed to do as they wish, simply because they felt like it—chaos would rein.

So we know why a crime is being committed. And that crime, like any business, arises because there is a demand. The problem for those stealing and killing horses is that there are local and state laws forbidding the theft and abuse (murder) of another person's animal.

Apparently the police have captured two of the horse murderers, which may lead to the arrest of others in the ring. But how can this crime trend truly be halted? The Cubans are not committing this crime: that is, an entire ethnic group is not responsible for the crimes of a few. (I am half-Italian, but I am not a member of the Mafia. In spite of what the "romantic" notion of Mafiosi would have you believe—not all Italians carry loaded Glocks.) Crimes are committed by individual people who have no concern for the rights or desires of others. It is never The Cubans, or The Italians, or The African-Americans who break the law and wreak havoc. It is always individuals, one single human being at a time, who chooses to break the law, who doesn't give a damn about anyone other than her or his selfish plans.

Criminals are Accountable to the Law

And because it is individuals who commit the crime—regardless of the segment of society to whom they are selling the wares—it is individuals who must be punished for the crimes. All of our emotional arguments about horses, that we love them and must protect them, will do nothing to dissuade someone who is hell-bent on stealing your horse and chopping her up right in her stall. Our weeping missives about why it shouldn't happen won't hold any water in court. The disgusting creatures who are killing horses in Florida will not stop because we love horses, and that it's mean to do this.

The perpetrators will only be stopped when the law becomes tough, and takes a serious stand with those who are stealing and butchering horses. The criminals in question are breaking not only local and state laws—they're guilty of serious federal offenses.

The three arguments that do hold up in court are those that state that:
1) It's illegal to steal someone else's animal;
2) It's a crime to abuse an animal; and
3) This is The Big One—it's a violation of United States Federal Law to sell meat that hasn't been inspected.

Poverty Breeds Desperation, and Desperation Breeds Crime.

Poverty is rampant in Miami-Dade, in spite of the breathtaking aerial shots on "CSI: Miami." (In April, 2007, Miami Today News cited the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey, in which it was reported that the City of Miami has one of the highest poverty rates and one of the lowest median incomes among large US cities.) This is not an especially unusual or unexpected statistic: Miami-Dade is a community not unlike Westchester County, New York, where some of the wealthiest people in America dwell, separated only by footbridges from some of the poorest people in the country. Pelham, New York, where the average cost of a home if $1,000,000 is literally one inch away from The Bronx.

While I've not been to Miami-Dade to observe their range of cuisine, I have dined in renowned Westchester restaurants. On the other end of the spectrum, I've had delicious Jerk Chicken and orange soda at Golden Krust, a great Caribbean semi-fast-food joint in The Bronx. Wealth is wealth, and poverty is poverty: the chances that the horse meat is being sold to someone's poor Grandma in South Florida is very thin. If Grandma is cooking Caballo for Sunday supper, she's paying top C$ (Cuban Pesos) for it. $1,060 C$, to be exact. And she's probably getting more than one pound. That's would be one damned expensive family dinner.

If it's the restaurants in Miami-Dade which are serving the illicit meat, they are playing a very dangerous game. Purchasing black market meat from a vendor who just slaughtered the animal with his own filthy hands has implications all the way from Health Department violations to the possibility of a lovely, decade-long mancation in a federal prison. What restaurateur in his right mind would sell contraband meat? A half-witted chef who serves Caballo serves to lose everything—restaurant, wife, family, all finances, savings and freedom.

Is it worth losing everything in your Life for the panache of serving one Caballo Filet?

And Why is Horse Meat Illegal?

The sale of horse meat is illegal for one reason, but a very good and compelling one, the aforementioned fact that the United States Department of Agriculture meat inspectors are forbidden by U.S. Law to inspect horse meat. The passage of the Law that states this was that which effectively closed down the horse slaughter plants in Texas and Illinois. If the meat can't be inspected, it can't leave the building. And it cannot be sold for human consumption if it cannot be inspected.

So if it's illegal for a legal horse slaughter plant to sell uninspected meat—how can it be legal to sell horse meat as an individual "vendor," who has no license and certainly had no USDA inspector to assure that the meat is disease-free?

Answer: it's not.


Laws That Must be Changed, and the One That Provides Serious Jail Time.

As discussed in a previous article here on Horse Race Insider, horses in America are not necessarily protected from abusive behaviour because they are not covered by the Domestic Animal laws. These are Laws that can be—if taken seriously—very harsh about domestic animal abuse.* But as it stands now, horses are considered to be livestock, in the same category with pigs, chickens and bulls. The laws that speak to a horse's right to live without fear of abuse and murder vary from city to city, county to county, state to state. It's confusing for laypeople and activists to sort out which laws in which acre of a city apply to a situation, and which do not. The perpetrators who are butchering horses in Miami-Dade, once they are caught, may end up being given a slap on the wrist because local and state laws regarding horse theft, abuse and murder are so nebulous.

Even if they have teeth—these local laws are rarely taken seriously by prosecutors who have drug dealers, serial killers and rapists on their weekly docket. Overwhelmed by the needs of the human community, prosecutors often are willing to strike deals with those who violate our horses, simply because the D.A.'s office is just overwhelmed.

We who love horses and defend them must work within our own communities (cities, states) to change the Domestic Animal Laws so that horses are considered in that category, rather than as livestock. That's one great step we must make, and until we get that accomplished at the local and state levels, horse abuse will continue—and slaughter will still be an option in the minds of many. But as we discuss the need to change the Domestic Animal Laws in favor of horses, our caballo friends are still being stolen and hacked up—time is not on their side. We must get those who torture and murder horses in their own barns arrested and into court. And the only way to do that swiftly is to insist that this crime—whether in South Florida, New York or Nevada—is punished at the federal level.

Al Capone didn't finally go to prison because he'd been convicted of giving the go-ahead for the assassination of hundreds of people. Or because he was a drug dealer and hands-off pimp. Al Capone was arrested and imprisoned by Ness and the good guys in Chicago because Capone was in violation of federal income tax laws. Income tax evasion was the very least of Capone's sins, but it's the one that the feds could use to get him into prison.

In the same spirit, that of getting criminals into prison for a seemingly-vague reason—that of punishing the least of their crimes—I ask that the Miami-Dade prosecutor's office; the Florida State Attorney General and even the Attorney General of the United States track down the criminals who are committing this obscene crime—and breaking the hearts of the good owners who had no say in the fate of their horses—and charge the offenders with the violation of the federal law of selling horse meat that has not been inspected.

It's not a huge collection of words, is it? "…federal law of selling horse meat that has not been inspected." A short statement, but packed with words that can lead to a prison sentence of several years. If the USDA can't inspect the meat from a legal plant, surely no one is inspecting the meat that's being cut out of the sides of a horse and sold on the back alleys of Miami. And those who butcher the horse and sell it are therefore in violation of federal meat inspection laws. And that violation cold buy them as much as 10 or more years in a federal penitentiary.

While they're at it, they might also charge the perps with possession of a stolen or otherwise illegal firearm. I'm pretty sure that anyone who enters a darkened barn late at night and is prepared to defend themselves against irate horse owners is packin' heat. And that they didn't bother to register that gun with the State of Florida.

So two federal laws are being broken in Miami-Dade. And that is the argument: that, in the end, it doesn't matter who's eating the meat, or whose culture has a long tradition, or who has fond memories of eating Horsie Frickasee back in Havana, Genoa or Paris. All that matters, in the end, is that those who are committing the crime are punished to the full extent of the law. Al Capone got 11 years, stiff fines and liens on all his major properties, for tax evasion.

A Call to Action

Can we allow these nameless, soulless criminals spend any less time in prison for breaking the hearts of horse owners and cruelly murdering these horses? If the animal welfare laws don't-yet allow the jail time that is appropriate for such hideous crimes—then we must utilize the meat inspection and unregistered firearms laws, and get these executioners off the streets of Miami, and into federal prisons for a decade or more.

Please help the horses in South Florida, who shake in their stalls, wondering if they'll be next. Those whose owners are scared to death, and fearful of entering their own barns after dark. Please call the attorneys listed below, and help get the South Florida Horse Murderers out of society and into a nice, dark prison cell. Call or email, whichever you do, insist that the federal laws which are being broken are the ones cited on the arrest warrants and indictment papers. Point out that, inasmuch as it is time-consuming and tiring to build a case against a horse thief and killer for federal law rather than mere local and state law—the evidence that the crime is being committed lies on the floor of a Dade County barn, torn to shreds, bloodying that which had been a nice, soft and safe bed, provided by a loving owner. The real CSI: Miami forensics team will have no problem finding the evidence to take to court.

It's worth our time and effort—and that of prosecutors—to get these disgusting creatures into federal prison for their crimes against horsemanity and humanity. If precedents are set, all the better. We cannot allow one more horse to be killed in Miami-Dade. And we cannot—we will not—allow those who steal a man's horse and stab it to death to pay a $50 fine and two days in prison.

Even goldfish in New York are defined as living creatures who deserve to live without being violated and murdered.* If we cannot convict the Florida Equine Executioners of federal offenses—we are saying that our horses are farther down the chain than a goldfish. And I know it's an apples and oranges argument, and some people do value goldfish over horses. But we must strive to assure that our horses get at least the legal protection as that of a koi.

Our failure to convict and punish the criminals who are terrorizing Miami-Dade may have implications down the line. The immediate concern regarding local and state laws is that, even amoeba in America have more rights than the average horse.

So, yes, here I go again, making a sin, a shame, this crime—sound like a federal offense.

Funny that this time…it really is.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* Reference: New York, People v. Garcia, 2004. WL 524653. Mr. Garcia had terrorized a woman and her three children, including crushing and killing the children's pet goldfish. He was charged with (among other things) a violation of New York State's Domestic Animal Law. The goldfish had names and were loved by the children as pets, ergo, Garcia was convicted as goldfish were domestic animals and therefore covered by the law. http://www.drafthorsejournal.net/summer2005/lawandhorses.htm



Katherine Fernandez Rundle, Miami State Attorney
http://www.miamisao.com/

Jeffrey H. Sloman, Acting U.S. Attorney
Office of the United States' Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/USAttorney.html



Write/Read Comments (4)

Share