It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that whipping horses while forcing them to run as fast as they possibly can is abusive, but new research proves the common horse racing practice is both extremely harmful and unnecessary for racing integrity.
A study published by Sydney-based researchers Lydia Tong, Melinda Stewart, Ian Johnson, Richard Appleyard, Bethany Wilson, Olivia James, Craig Johnson, and Paul McGreevy suggests that horses experience pain when they’re whipped just as humans do. While horse skin is thicker overall than human skin, it doesn’t insulate the animals from the pain that a whip strike causes. The part of the skin that’s enervated—that registers the pain—is the same thickness as that of humans. The study also found that humans and horses have “equivalent basic anatomic structures to detect pain in the skin,” with no significant differences in nerve ending concentration.
While horse skin is thicker overall than human skin, it doesn’t insulate the animals from the pain that a whip strike causes. The part of the skin that’s enervated—that registers the pain—is the same thickness as that of humans. The study also found that humans and horses have “equivalent basic anatomic structures to detect pain in the skin,” with no significant differences in nerve ending concentration.
We already knew that whipping horses doesn’t make them run faster, but a more recent study provides evidence that it also doesn’t improve steering, reduce interference, or improve safety. It’s not essential to horse racing at all. The research provides nothing to commend the use of whips in races, and the authors of the study note that animal welfare concerns and public discontent far outweigh the feeble justifications for whipping.
In addition to sharing our capacity to feel pain, horses care deeply for their families and have complex emotions. They shouldn’t be abused and forced to run for anyone’s entertainment, no matter what the conditions are. Pushing for stricter rules on racetracks is a step in the right direction.
New Jersey became the first state to issue a statewide ban on whipping, but the work is far from done. Help us urge the New York State Gaming Commission to adopt a similar regulation:
Spiking COVID-19 cases are compromising Montana’s reopening plan, and PETA is calling on the governor and the Montana Department of Public Health & Human Services to cut cruel animal experiments statewide—starting with tests on animals, many of whom institutions deemed to be non-essential in response to the pandemic—and protect human health by having staff not come into laboratories to conduct worthless experiments.
In its letter, PETA points out that during the initial COVID-19 shutdown, the University of Montana (UM) issued guidance deeming many of its experiments—and the animals used in them—extraneous, which resulted in the apparent euthanasia of numerous animals in its laboratories. UM implemented a plan in which “researchers with active animal studies” were urged to “consider finalizing experimental endpoints and reducing population numbers in accordance with approved animal use protocols” and to “delay starting longitudinal studies until further notice.”
PETA questions why animals deemed by the university to be extraneous are being bought, bred, trapped, or experimented on in the first place and notes that staff conducting these experiments are being put at unnecessary risk as a result of working in close proximity to others. In addition, if animal testing resumes and Montana shuts down again, more animals may be euthanized, wasting taxpayer money that could have funded superior, human-relevant studies.
“This pandemic should be a wake-up call to shift away from experiments on animals and toward a ‘new normal’ of modern, non-animal research methods,” says PETA Vice President Shalin Gala. “PETA is calling on state officials to learn from the past and keep all animals from suffering in cruel and wasteful tests.”
More than 90% of results from basic scientific research—much involving animal testing—fails to lead to treatments for humans, and 95% of new medications found to be safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials.
PETA previously called for an audit of public money, personnel, property, equipment, and space used by UM for animal tests deemed non-essential, noting that the university received nearly $99 million in state appropriations in the last fiscal year, some of which may have funded such animal experiments.
PETA—whose motto reads, in part, that “animals are not ours to experiment on”—opposes speciesism, a human-supremacist worldview. For more information, please visit PETA.org, click here, or follow the group on Twitter, Facebook,
Because ExxonMobil continues to pump money into the deadly Iditarod dog race even as other sponsors have pulled out, PETA supporters armed with yellow caution tape will “close” a local Esso station—which ExxonMobil is the parent company of—for cruelty tomorrow. The action follows a PETA protest outside the company’s headquarters and is one of many planned for Esso locations nationwide.
When: Friday, December 4, 12 noon
Where: Esso gas station, 2901 Eighth St. E. (at the intersection with Goodwin Avenue), Saskatoon
“ExxonMobil has the shameful distinction of being one of the last major companies still sponsoring the Iditarod’s cruelty to dogs,” says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. “PETA is urging it to stop propping up an evil industry that forces dogs to run so far and so fast that they often die after inhaling their own vomit.”
Jack Daniel’s, Coca-Cola, Wells Fargo, Alaska Airlines, and many other companies cut ties with the race after PETA pointed out that more than 150 dogs have died in the Iditarod since it began. In addition to being tied up on mushers’ properties (as revealed in this PETA exposé), dogs are forced to pull heavy sleds across 1,000 miles through blinding blizzards and subzero temperatures.
More than 220 dogs were pulled off the trail during the 2020 race because of exhaustion, illness, injury, or other causes. One, Cool Cat, developed twisted intestines and almost died. Another, Betty, had pneumonia and was in critical condition, and two others refused to eat and had fevers, diarrhea, and persistent coughs.
PETA—whose motto reads, in part, that “animals are not ours to use for entertainment”—opposes speciesism, which is a human-supremacist worldview. For more information, please visit PETA.org or follow the group on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.
In response to San Francisco’s plan to change the names of 42 schools that pay homage to problematic historical figures, including those “connected to any human rights or environmental abuse,” PETA has fired off a letter urging the San Francisco Unified School District School Names Advisory Committee and San Francisco Board of Education President Mark Sanchez to add Thomas Edison Charter Academy to its list, after it had been previously turned down by the committee for “not meeting the criteria.” That, PETA says, was an oversight.
PETA points out that Edison was a cruel person whose human-supremacist beliefs led him to electrocute scores of animals—including an elephant named Topsy—fatally and painfully and who abused his own family. PETA suggests that the school be renamed after Mark Twain, Mahatma Gandhi, William Wilberforce, or Leonardo da Vinci, all enlightened individuals who were demonstrably kind to all living, feeling beings.
“PETA hopes to see a lightbulb go on—everyone must realize that an inclusive world means consideration for not only humans but also all other animals,” says PETA President Ingrid Newkirk. “Anyone who was cruel enough to electrocute vulnerable animals shouldn’t be honored by having his name on a teaching institution.”
PETA’s motto reads, in part, that “animals are not ours to abuse.” For more information, please visit PETA.org or follow the group on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.
PETA’s letter to Jeffries and Sanchez follows.
December 2, 2020
Jeremiah Jeffries
Facilitator
School Names Advisory Committee
Mark Sanchez
President
San Francisco Board of Education
Dear Messrs. Jeffries and Sanchez:
I’m writing on behalf of PETA and its more than 6.5 million members and supporters worldwide, including over 16,000 in San Francisco, to urge the San Francisco School Names Advisory Committee to reconsider its decision not to add Thomas Edison Charter Academy to the list of school names to be renamed.
It’s laudable that the committee has recognized that individuals involved in abhorrent human right abuses, such as slavery, oppression, and genocide, should not be held up as examples for children to follow. However, speciesism allows people to acknowledge the suffering that these marginalized groups endured and yet dismiss the suffering of other thinking, feeling beings. In addition to being a greedy and corrupt businessperson and an unkind husband and father, Edison committed disturbing acts of cruelty to animals.
If curious schoolchildren at Thomas Edison Charter Academy search the internet for information on their school’s namesake, they’ll find that he held public animal-electrocution events, painfully killing horses, cows, stray dogs and cats, and Topsy the elephant. Allowing the academy to bear Edison’s name sends kids the harmful message that it’s acceptable to commit violent acts against an individual who is different from them, a lesson I’m sure the committee does not want to teach. In addition, research in psychology and criminology has repeatedly shown that people who commit acts of cruelty to animals often don’t stop there—many of them move on to hurting their fellow humans.
Committee member Mary Travis Allen rightly stated, “The names of all the schools in this city should reflect people to be admired.” Many worthy candidates meet that criterion. Mark Twain was called the “Moralist of the Main” for his abhorrence of corruption, greed, and violence—including objecting to vivisection. Mahatma Gandhi, one of the world’s strongest advocates for kindness and peace, noted, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” William Wilberforce was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and was a staunch supporter of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In addition to being one of the greatest painters and thinkers in history, Leonardo da Vinci is believed to have been a vegetarian who refused to wear animals’ skins and was said to purchase caged birds so as to let them fly away.
Please use this opportunity to spread a message of compassion to all. We look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
Ingrid E. Newkirk
President
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
PETA has obtained a U.S. Department of Agriculture report revealing another recent violation of law at Pudliner Packing outside Johnstown. In response, the group sent a letter this morning calling on Pennsylvania State Police Criminal Investigation Section Commander Lt. Lisa A. Jobe to review the matter and, as appropriate, file criminal cruelty-to-animals charges against the facility and the personnel who on November 16 ineffectively shot a cow in the head twice. The animal remained standing until a third shot finally rendered her unconscious.
This is the fourth time since June 2019 that a cow remained conscious after shots to the head at Pudliner Packing, including in one incident in January and another in August, which PETA is also asking Jobe to review. Also, in 2018, three shots were needed to stun a pig who cried out while blood ran down his or her snout.
“Animals victimized by the meat industry suffer terribly every single day, as this slaughterhouse’s repeated, gruesome violations show,” says PETA Senior Vice President Daphna Nachminovitch. “Anyone disturbed by these incidents can help stop this cruelty by simply keeping animal flesh off their plates.”
PETA—whose motto reads, in part, that “animals are not ours to eat”—opposes speciesism, which is a human-supremacist worldview. The group notes that cows, pigs, sheep, chickens, and other animals feel pain and fear and value their lives, just as humans do, and that the best way to help prevent them from suffering in slaughterhouses is not to eat them.
I hope this letter finds you well. I would like to request that your office investigate and file suitable criminal charges against Pudliner Packing and the worker(s) responsible for shooting cows in the head up to four times—and cutting the throat of one while she was conscious and crying out—at its slaughterhouse located at 167 Norton Rd., outside of Johnstown. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) documented the incidents in the attached reports, which state the following:
November 16, 2020: “Establishment personnel were stunning a dairy cow in the stunning area with a .410 shotgun. After the first shot, the Consumer Safety Inspector (CSI) observed the animal conscious, as it was still standing. After the second stunning attempt with the .410 shotgun, the CSI observed the animal still standing, alert and looking around. Establishment personnel then effectively stunned the animal with a 20-gauge shotgun. Upon examination, there were three distinct holes in the head.”1
August 11, 2020: “Establishment personnel were stunning a beef cow … with a .22 magnum rifle. After two shots, the Food Inspector (FI) observed the animal in a state of consciousness as it was still standing. After the next shot attempt, the [CSI] observed the animal in sternal recumbency, alert and looking around. The plant then effectively stunned the animal with the fourth shot. After the bovine was skinned out, only one large hole was observed in the cranium.”2
January 27, 2020: “Establishment personnel stunned a Holstein dairy cow in the stunning area with a firearm, then proceeded to winch it into the area to be shackled and hoisted. While the bovine was hanging on the rail, the CSI was able to determine that the animal was not insensible as it was vocalizing loudly and looking around. The establishment employee ignored the vocalization and continued to hang the bovine, then made the bleeding cut on a conscious animal. Shortly after the bleeding cut, the animal lost sensibility. After the bovine was skinned out, three holes were observed in the cranium.”3
June 26, 2019: “The [federal inspector] … was listening to the firearm stunning of a cow …. He heard the first gunshot but did not hear the animal fall. He heard a second gunshot and then heard the cow bellowing from the alley. He heard a third stunning attempt with the hand held captive bolt and heard the cow fall. The employees brought the animal into the slaughter floor and removed the head. Three holes were observed in the skull.”4
This conduct appears to violate 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5533(a). Importantly, FSIS action does not preempt criminal liability under state law for slaughterhouse workers who perpetrate acts of cruelty to animals.5
Please let us know what we might do to assist you. Thank you for your consideration and for the difficult work that you do.
5See Nat’l. Meat Assoc. v.Harris, 132 S. Ct. 965, 974 n.10 (2012) (“. . . States may exact civil or criminal penalties for animal cruelty or other conduct that also violates the [Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA)]. See [21 U.S.C.] §678; cf. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 447 (2005) (holding that a preemption clause barring state laws ‘in addition to or different’ from a federal Act does not interfere with an ‘equivalent’ state provision). Although the FMIA preempts much state law involving slaughterhouses, it thus leaves some room for the States to regulate.”).
