Horseracing

ed2hands

Is horseracing (or for that matter any general use of animals for in sports)
demeaning for both species?

Everyone (or almost everyone) is fully against cockfighting, dogfighting and the like. That's a no-brainer because it's obviously cruel.

The Irish race especially is well known for having a great affinity with horses.

The big question is if the industry of racing animals for fun, is itself demeaning to humanity?

Will horseracing be looked upon in the future as something akin to animal cruelty?

Nulty

For a start I'll introduce myself as a fan of horse racing. I will also say that it is best left to those who work with horses to know whether it is cruel or not.

I will put forward the argument that not even the animal welfare groups will suggest that it's cruel to ride a horse. In almost all cases horse racing is not cruel but like everything there are exceptions. The rules do not allow for cruelty and it is not encouraged. It is up to the individuals in charge of the horses to be responsible with them. I have seen cases in horse racing where I have felt that the jockey was too hard on a horse or unnecessarily forceful but those incidents are wholly in the minority. 99% of people in the sport care dearly for the animals but there is always a few who get the news headlines for incidents of mistreatment. Its a misrepresentation of "horse racing". Whips have been made softer and now in the UK the number of times a horse can be struck with the whip has been curtailed.

My opinion is that horse racing is not in itself cruel but like anything it can lead to unfortunate incidents that are publicised to the detriment of the responsible and caring members of the community.

Ickle Magoo

As much as I love horse riding and I don't think it is demeaning to horse or rider - I have to wonder if any other sport would ever be allowed to televise the guiding of one of their biggest race of the year around the carcasses of those who died trying to complete the course...tho as it is not the aim of the sport for any horse to get injured or have to be destroyed, I don't think it can ever be compared to dog or cock fighting.

MungBean

Nulty wrote: »

For a start I'll introduce myself as a fan of horse racing. I will also say that it is best left to those who work with horses to know whether it is cruel or not.

I dont understand why those who work with horses should be the ones to determine if its cruel ? I presume you mean the trainers or people involved in racing or jumping ? Isnt that like saying it should be left to dog fight organisers to determine if dog fighting is cruel ?

I will put forward the argument that not even the animal welfare groups will suggest that it's cruel to ride a horse. In almost all cases horse racing is not cruel but like everything there are exceptions. The rules do not allow for cruelty and it is not encouraged. It is up to the individuals in charge of the horses to be responsible with them. I have seen cases in horse racing where I have felt that the jockey was too hard on a horse or unnecessarily forceful but those incidents are wholly in the minority. 99% of people in the sport care dearly for the animals but there is always a few who get the news headlines for incidents of mistreatment. Its a misrepresentation of "horse racing". Whips have been made softer and now in the UK the number of times a horse can be struck with the whip has been curtailed.

Cruelty as you see it and as someone else sees it can be very different though. To some beating a horse with a whip no matter how soft is cruel. It does one thing. Inflicts pain to get a reaction. Someone atop a horse beats it with a whip to spur it on for the purpose of entertainment.

My opinion is that horse racing is not in itself cruel but like anything it can lead to unfortunate incidents that are publicised to the detriment of the responsible and caring members of the community.

Many a horse has broken a leg in a race. Many a horse has been injured and died for the entertainment of humans. Would it not be better to not just limit with rules but to just make it impossible for horses to be treated cruelly by stopping the sport altogether ?

Personally I'm not a fan of horse racing. I think it is demeaning and cruel to have someone on a horses back beating it with a whip to run it around a track so people can place bets on it. I wouldn’t see it anywhere near the level of cruelty of cock fighting or dog fighting but it does seem to me to be a pretty low thing to be doing to an animal in the name of entertainment.

Corsendonk

Would the breeding and genetic selection of bloodlines be classed as demeaning and cruel? Just look at any old paintings of horses and either they were pretty bad artists when drawing them or race horses have undergone a dramatic change since we bred them for more speed which has resulted in genetic weaknesses in other areas of the horses health. The same could be said about dog breeding.

Gee Bag

Corsendonk wrote: »

Would the breeding and genetic selection of bloodlines be classed as demeaning and cruel? Just look at any old paintings of horses and either they were pretty bad artists when drawing them or race horses have undergone a dramatic change since we bred them for more speed which has resulted in genetic weaknesses in other areas of the horses health. The same could be said about dog breeding.

Good points here,

Modern domesticated animals have gotten to the stage where their relationships with humans are symbiotic. For example if dairy cows were released into the wild they would burst (I presume!).

Horses bred for racing are in a similar kind of position. They are so different from their ancestors that they can't really be compared to one another. I do believe that the people who work with these thoroughbreds fully understand the horses temperment and needs better than an outsider.

That some horses will die during races is a given. Plenty of footballers keel over and die every year but we don't consider it inhumane. Stuff happens. However, I would certainly agree with the idea that races where there is a substatial chance of horses being injured or killed are inhumane

MungBean

Gee Bag wrote: »

Good points here,

Modern domesticated animals have gotten to the stage where their relationships with humans are symbiotic. For example if dairy cows were released into the wild they would burst (I presume!).

Horses bred for racing are in a similar kind of position. They are so different from their ancestors that they can't really be compared to one another. I do believe that the people who work with these thoroughbreds fully understand the horses temperment and needs better than an outsider.

That some horses will die during races is a given. Plenty of footballers keel over and die every year but we don't consider it inhumane. Stuff happens. However, I would certainly agree with the idea that races where there is a substatial chance of horses being injured or killed are inhumane

We would if they were forced to do it. And in regards to the breeding its not cruel until it affects the animal negatively. Certain breeds of dogs are extremely prone to epilepsy and all manner of other problems purely because of the way they were bred. Breeding an animal to be smaller and cuter at the expense of its health is cruel.

With horses its different as they are bred to be stronger and healthier. So I see no problem in the breeding of horses as long as it doesnt affect the animals health or life negatively but I dont agree with them being bred for the sole purpose of having someone sit on their back beating them with a whip to force them round a track as fast as possible for entertainment.

Gee Bag

MungBean wrote: »

We would if they were forced to do it. And in regards to the breeding its not cruel until it affects the animal negatively. Certain breeds of dogs are extremely prone to epilepsy and all manner of other problems purely because of the way they were bred. Breeding an animal to be smaller and cuter at the expense of its health is cruel.

With horses its different as they are bred to be stronger and healthier. So I see no problem in the breeding of horses as long as it doesnt affect the animals health or life negatively but I dont agree with them being bred for the sole purpose of having someone sit on their back beating them with a whip to force them round a track as fast as possible for entertainment.

The point I was trying to make (badly) was that some domesticated animals are now so different to their ancestors that they can not be compared. I certainly agree with you that whipping the horse to get it to run around the track faster is wrong.

The idea of using the example of footballers was only meant to illustrate the point that accidents/tragedies do happen. Obviously the issue of free-will comes into it. However, nothing can be 100% risk free. Whenever possible the unneccessary potential for injury/harm should be removed .

The example of dogs is a bit of a tough one. As I understand it, pedigree dogs are very prone to inbreeding due to the need to keep the bloodline pure. There is the oft repeated story that the boom in demand for Dalmatian puppies after the Disney film led to unscrupolous breeders breeding dogs who were very closely related (who wouldn't want to own a cuddly pet that also plays the banjo!). However, if someone was to point out that this was an urban myth I would not be surprised.

The question that then presents itself is this. If a horse's lineage is such that it is 'built' to race would it be cruel to deny the horse the oppurtunity to do so?

MungBean

Gee Bag wrote: »

The question that then presents itself is this. If a horse's lineage is such that it is 'built' to race would it be cruel to deny the horse the oppurtunity to do so?

It isnt built to race though in the way you are saying it (its purpose is to race or it exists to race). Its built to be fast and powerful. And regardless of how you see that denying it the chance to race isnt denying it the opportunity to use its speed and strength. Simply giving it enough room in a field will give it the opportunity to do that.

This is a very similar discussion as hunting as far as I can see. Yes the animals are bred for a purpose but that purpose is to entertain humans. The only thing that separates it from hunting is the manner in which the animal is being used. In hunting the animal's purpose it to be killed for entertainment. In horse racing its purpose is to be raced around a track.

So its whether you see the act as cruel or not that differs the two. Personally I think its cruel to beat an animal with a whip and force it to race for entertainment. So for me its in the same category as all the rest. Abusing animals for entertainment.

Gee Bag

MungBean wrote: »

It isnt built to race though in the way you are saying it (its purpose is to race or it exists to race). Its built to be fast and powerful. And regardless of how you see that denying it the chance to race isnt denying it the opportunity to use its speed and strength. Simply giving it enough room in a field will give it the opportunity to do that.

I stick by my original point - a modern race horse is 'built' to race (Don't like using the term built but can't think of a better one). Running around a field is not the same thing as running around a track.

War horses were bred to be both fast and powerful. Work horses were bred to be powerful, race horses are bred simply to be fast. There is a difference.

Again I make the point that the modern horse is fundamentally different from its ancestor. These differnces are brought about through a combination of breeding, diet and environment.

I already agred with you that he use of the whip is wrong.

As for hunting (as in silly people with red coats & beagles) I know little about it other than that it is both cruel and pointless.

MungBean

Gee Bag wrote: »

I stick by my original point - a modern race horse is 'built' to race (Don't like using the term built but can't think of a better one). Running around a field is not the same thing as running around a track.

War horses were bred to be both fast and powerful. Work horses were bred to be powerful, race horses are bred simply to be fast. There is a difference.

Again I make the point that the modern horse is fundamentally different from its ancestor. These differnces are brought about through a combination of breeding, diet and environment.

I already agred with you that he use of the whip is wrong.

As for hunting (as in silly people with red coats & beagles) I know little about it other than that it is both cruel and pointless.

Even if a horse is bred to be fast and it cannot reach the speeds in the wild as it would by being forced around a track how would it be cruel to not force it to race?

The horse doesnt want to race, regardless of what it was bred for it wants what all horses and all animals want. Its bred to have the potential to do something and that potential is realised through training. If its not trained, and not conditioned then its not a racehorse and wont be capable of reaching the speeds that they have the ability to do. Just as I have the ability to run marathons but I'm not conditioned to do so.

Saying it would be cruel to deny it the chance to race is like saying its cruel to let a cow live if it was bred for slaughter. Regardless of what you think it should be doing or is capable of doing the cruelty lies in forcing it to do those things.

And the hunting I was referring to wasnt the hunt it was killing any animals for sport. Its breeding an animal for a purpose (pheasant, rabbits, deer, anything you want in africa), and the purpose is to be shot and killed to entertain humans. You cant just designate what an animal should be used for, breed it to meet that requirement and then force it to do so under the argument that it was bred for that purpose.

Gee Bag

MungBean wrote: »

The horse doesnt want to race, regardless of what it was bred for it wants what all horses and all animals want.

How do you know what a horse wants? Do you own/keep/work with/train horses? In my experience with race horses they like to run fast. Its whatthey do best. Shock, Horror they actually enjoy it!

The general thrust of your argument appears to be that the domestication of animals is wrong. Well, fair enough but your probably about 8,000 years too late to make any difference.

Animals raised to be killed by hunters are a completley different matter. I fail to understand how anyone can get their kicks blasting a semi-domesticated animal with a shotgun. I abhor violence/cruelty towards animals. In one my earlier posts I said that subjecting race horses to unnecessary risks was wrong. However, nothing can ever be 100% risk free. That's just the way the world is.

MungBean

Gee Bag wrote: »

How do you know what a horse wants?

Is this the end of your argument ? "How you know what horses want?". The fact that they have to be forced to do it would show its not top of their to do list I'd imagine. Unless they have told you otherwise ? :rolleyes:

MungBean

Gee Bag wrote: »

How do you know what a horse wants? Do you own/keep/work with/train horses? In my experience with race horses they like to run fast. Its whatthey do best. Shock, Horror they actually enjoy it!

Running fast isnt necessarily the same thing as racing though is it ? One is running fast the other is being forced around a track with pain as an incentive. And I have owed and kept many animals, horses included.

The general thrust of your argument appears to be that the domestication of animals is wrong. Well, fair enough but your probably about 8,000 years too late to make any difference.

Not the domestication, the exploitation and abuse. Plenty of things have been done for thousands of years and its no excuse to keep doing it.

Animals raised to be killed by hunters are a completley different matter. I fail to understand how anyone can get their kicks blasting a semi-domesticated animal with a shotgun. I abhor violence/cruelty towards animals. In one my earlier posts I said that subjecting race horses to unnecessary risks was wrong. However, nothing can ever be 100% risk free. That's just the way the world is.

Why subject them to any risk ? You think the risk of injury to an animal is a risk that should be taken as long as people are entertained by it ?

Gee Bag

MungBean wrote: »

Running fast isnt necessarily the same thing as racing though is it ? One is running fast the other is being forced around a track with pain as an incentive. And I have owed and kept many animals, horses included.

True, but horses don't run solely because they are whipped. In my experience they enjoy it. If they didn't want you up on their back they would throw you.

Not the domestication, the exploitation and abuse. Plenty of things have been done for thousands of years and its no excuse to keep doing it.

Nobody in their right mind would advocate abuse.

As for exploitation if you mean rearing animals for food then I don't agree with you. We just happen to be top of the food chain. The lion doen't worry too much about whether or not it's exploiting the gazelle. Humans are omnivores. Eating meat is in our nature.

Its way too late to think about reversing domestication.

Why subject them to any risk ? You think the risk of injury to an animal is a risk that should be taken as long as people are entertained by it ?

Nothing can ever be risk free. Nothing. That point has nothing to do entertaining people. A horse could be out in a field and a tree could fall on it. By your logic should we then keep all horses indoors, forever, just in case?

Gee Bag

MungBean wrote: »

Is this the end of your argument ? "How you know what horses want?". The fact that they have to be forced to do it would show its not top of their to do list I'd imagine. Unless they have told you otherwise ? :rolleyes:

Your the one who claimed to know what horses want. Unless you happen to be Dr. Doolittle I find that hard to believe.

For future reference - The end of an argument is not usually the first line.

...........and last but not least smileys are for schoolgirls

MungBean

Gee Bag wrote: »

True, but horses don't run solely because they are whipped. In my experience they enjoy it. If they didn't want you up on their back they would throw you.

Of course they dont run solely because they are whipped but the fact that they are whipped shows the need to be forced into doing whats wanted of them. And if you ever get up on an unbroken horse you will know in no uncertain terms that he doesnt want you on his back. You can train an animal to do most things, just because one is trained to accept a rider doesnt mean he wants one on his back, just means he's trained not to fight it.

Nobody in their right mind would advocate abuse.

Of course they wouldnt but people differ in what they see as a abuse. You think racing is ok, I think its abuse.

As for exploitation if you mean rearing animals for food then I don't agree with you. We just happen to be top of the food chain. The lion doen't worry too much about whether or not it's exploiting the gazelle. Humans are omnivores. Eating meat is in our nature.

I'm not a vegetarian and I'm not getting into that debate. But I see a difference in breeding and killing out of necessity and doing it for entertainment.

Its way too late to think about reversing domestication

I dont want to reverse it, I'm not sure where ya got that from or what it has to do with this discussion either. Banning horse racing wouldnt be reversing domestication, it would be banning horse racing.

Nothing can ever be risk free. Nothing. That point has nothing to do entertaining people. A horse could be out in a field and a tree could fall on it. By your logic should we then keep all horses indoors, forever, just in case?

By my logic if you dont like horses getting injured then dont put them into situations where they are more likely to be injured.

More of a chance of a tree falling on a horse or one breaking its leg in a race ? Race obviously so the logical thing to do if you dont want it getting hurt is to leave it in the field. To risk a horses health to entertain yourself is abusing that animal. You can talk about all the scenarios and possibilities you want but its still abuse.

I have a question for you seeing as you have established your position in regards to the horses health not being a priority. Why is that you being entertained is more important that a horses health ?

MungBean

Gee Bag wrote: »

Your the one who claimed to know what horses want. Unless you happen to be Dr. Doolittle I find that hard to believe.

For future reference - The end of an argument is not usually the first line.

...........and last but not least smileys are for schoolgirls

I quoted your full post. You just edited at the same time (probably because you realised how ridiculous it was).

And last but not least dont post childish things and you wont need to edit them. Then perhaps there wont be any confusion. Ok champ ?

aidan24326

By and large racehorses are treated well and the majority have a pretty good life compared to alot of animals. There are exceptions of course. But there are measures in place for those who flaunt the rules. A prominent English trainer had his license cancelled only recently for breaking the rules with regard to the welfare of his horses.

MungBean

aidan24326 wrote: »

By and large racehorses are treated well and the majority have a pretty good life compared to alot of animals. There are exceptions of course. But there are measures in place for those who flaunt the rules. A prominent English trainer had his license cancelled only recently for breaking the rules with regard to the welfare of his horses.

Horses to most trainers and owners are investments. They will do all in their power to ensure their investments are protected. But when one breaks a leg or gets injured in some way as to prevent it racing it is no longer financially viable to protect it. Unless it can be put to stud or sold it will more than likely be put down.

Thats in my experience of course, from what I have seen from several different trainers and heard from different owners. May not be the case for other but it seems the general consensus among trainers down this way. Most certainly was that way in the past, has it changed in that regard in recent times to your knowledge ?

Gee Bag

Your last post shows we agree on a lot of points. Animal cruelty, vegetarianism, etc.

For me there is no comparison between a wild horse and a race horse. It's like the difference between a poodle and a wolf.

My argument is that a thoroughbred has been so honed through breeding to race that to deny it the oppurtunity to race would be a betrayal to the nature of the animal.

I'm not actually a fan of horse racing (believe it or not) therfore I don't really derive enjoyment from the sport, but I do love horses and horsemanship.

I already stated that I thought unneccesary risk should be eliminated. I just don't think its feasible to eliminate all risk. This applies not just to horse racing, but to all spheres of life.

If we have reached an impasse regarding whether racing is right or wrong then fair enough.

Gee Bag

MungBean wrote: »

I quoted your full post. You just edited at the same time (probably because you realised how ridiculous it was).

And last but not least dont post childish things and you wont need to edit them. Then perhaps there wont be any confusion. Ok champ ?

Again pal, you were the one claiming you know what all horses want. A daft claim for anyone to make.

Don't be getting scaldy because I pointed out smilies are for sissys

MungBean

Gee Bag wrote: »

Again pal, you were the one claiming you know what all horses want. A daft claim for anyone to make.

Don't be getting scaldy because I pointed out smilies are for sissys

I didnt claim to know what all horses want, I said they obviously dont want to race if they have to be forced to do it which is a logical conclusion to come to if an animal has to be beaten with a whip to get it to do what its expected to do. Its not that hard to get your head around. You said "If the didnt want you on their back they would throw you" and "In my experience they enjoy racing". So what you said is just as valid or as daft as what I said.

Your not really in a position to be calling what anyone else says daft anyway as your entire argument has been a lame attempt to justify cruel behaviour using the excuse "Thats how life is".

And this little nugget.

My argument is that a thoroughbred has been so honed through breeding to race that to deny it the oppurtunity to race would be a betrayal to the nature of the animal.

Your argument is that its ok to abuse an animal if that animal was bred for abuse. And to not do that would be a betrayal to the nature (what you perceive to be the nature) of the animal.

You cant seem to differentiate between the nature of the animal (running) and the abuse if the animal (forcing it to run).

I'm not gettin scaldy you just got childish, and fair play with the sissy thing. Very intelligent, witty and original.

Gee Bag

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

You think horse racing is fundamentally cruel, I don't.

I think there are enormous variations in temperment between different types of horses, and in my experience race horses enjoy racing.

Just to show there's no hard feelings........:)