Yes, there probably are more important, urgent, or pressing problems facing the environment, the world’s wildlife, or even us humans (though at least we – in theory – have it within our power to change what’s happening to us) than horses being made to dive off platforms so high the average human would turn around and go back down the steps they just came up – but, seriously, how on earth in 2012 could anyone think about reviving an ‘act’ like this? The simple answer of course is money, and the executives at Atlantic City’s Steel Pier and the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority are gambling (probably correctly) that the people who might go to watch a prey animal being forced into a situation of total vulnerability while surrounded by a crowd of people they don’t know and don’t understand the intentions of, won’t have given any thought to the methods used to make the horses behave this way and quite possibly wouldn’t care anyway.

A diving horse at the Atlantic City Steel Pier, 1959. Photo credit: lreed76 via flickriver

So what’s next for New Jersey? Perhaps with a bit of effort and the lure of tourist dollars and/or job creation, businesses could persuade legislators to change the law and bring back cock-fighting…

Anyway, the commendably restrained information below is circulating courtesy of Stop Humanewatch on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/StopHumaneWatch:

• Several online petitions are being circulated to protest the re-introduction of the diving horse act at Atlantic City. From what we can figure out, the petitions are all directed at the owners of the Steel Pier, who don’t seem either interested, or inclined, to change their course (they already have 3 horses in training for this summer).

  However, the folks who approved the act and – more importantly – who can dis-approve the act, are these guys:

  Casino Reinvestment Development Authority
  PO Box 749
  1014 Atlantic Avenue
  Atlantic City, NJ 08401

  609-347-0500

  info@njcrda.com

  Please be firm, but respectful. Organizations are much more sensitive (and responsive) to knowing that they will incur mountains of bad publicity and loss of revenue, than they are (typically) to emotional outbursts (no matter how justified).