ThinkProgress wrote: » Someone said this to me the other day, and quite honestly I have to say it made me stop and think about it... I've never heard anyone make this point before! I think we're so conditioned to seeing horses with people on their backs it's almost like we forget that they were not actually designed that way. lol I guess on a sliding scale of animal cruelty, we possibly do much worse things to other creatures... What do you think? Could it be considered a form of cruelty / forced servitude? Or do horses love having heavy saddles and people on their backs?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Phrasing OP!
Valentina wrote: » No it's not cruel. Horses are working animals. Handle them with care and respect and they will do anything for you. I have been an equestrian for almost 30 years. If a horse did not want to do something you would know all about it. Saying it is cruel sounds like the kind of nonsense PETA come out with.
MadDog76 wrote: » I don't know if it's cruel to ride a horse but I'm fairly sure it's illegal.
The Sidewards Man wrote: » Would you ride a dog maddog?
ThinkProgress wrote: » I'm not a member of PETA nor do I envisage ever being one. I'm really just playing devil's advocate a bit here. I grew up around animals. Horses generally get excellent treatment and conditions in this country... and their owners love them.
ThinkProgress wrote: » But my point is really just about them being forced to carry people around on their backs, like it's something they were born to do!
ThinkProgress wrote: » I don't think they were born to carry us. If you look at a wild horse being "broken in"... they can be quite reluctant when initially being tamed. This makes me think it's not really something they'd choose to do. (if they had free will)
ThinkProgress wrote: » After that initial breaking in period they seem to become incredibly docile and obedient. Which is amazing considering how powerful they are. But how do we know that we're not just bullying one of nature's most peaceful and friendly creatures? Maybe they don't like having us on their back, but they're just too nice and passive to get angry about it? Maybe they just accept their fate and get on with it...
ThinkProgress wrote: » If you look at them in the wild (quite a rare thing sadly), they really are amazing to watch. It is a bit odd really that most people's image of the horse is likely with a human on it's back... Also makes me wonder, have horses evolved over the years considering how long we've been sitting on their backs?
me_irl wrote: » Ask Mr Hands. Oh...
The Sidewards Man wrote: » Depends on what your definition of riding a horse is.
Valentina wrote: » I mentioned PETA because they have come out with statements like this before; riding horses is cruel, owning a dog is cruel. What do they think would become of all of these animals if people agreed and set them all free?
They were born to do that though. Horses are working animals. Human involvement/interference has resulted in many different breeds for different jobs. What would become of horses if they weren't bred for riding/work? They would be left to die out.
Watch some natural horsemanship videos on YouTube showing the very first interactions between an untrained horse and a human. Horses will naturally gravitate towards the human. They want to be part of a herd. They want a leader. They choose this, it's instinct.
Being 'broken' is quite an outdated concept nowadays. Many people (with of course exceptions) will use humane, natural methods to train horses by communicating in the same way horses do. This makes it much easier for the horse to understand what is being asked rather than being punished into doing something.
Horses have individual personalities. Not all are docile and obedient even after training. One of my horses does not suffer fools. Ask her the wrong way to do something and you will be sitting on your arse wondering what happened. Ask her correctly (humane methods I mentioned) and she will bend the neck, engage her back and flow from the shoulder. She's beautiful to watch And she does it willingly because I ask her with respect. I know her personality and I know she is happy to do it for me. Horses are incredible creatures. The relationship you have with your horse is unlike any you'll have with any other animal. Symbiosis at its best.
Unfortunately countries with wild horses consider them to pests and they are regularly rounded up and slaughtered to keep populations down. Some are slaughtered for horse meat.
We've been sitting on horses' backs for less than 10,000 years in comparison to ~5 million years of evolution to get the animal you see today. Correctly riding the horse by engaging the head and neck will actually strengthen the horse's back and neck muscles, making it easier for him to carry his rider. Horses are incredibly strong, carrying a person is not going to alter their evolutionary path. (Obviously there are weight restrictions, it would be unfair to ask a small horse to carry someone very overweight but a rule of thumb is a horse can carry up to 20% of his own weight.)
I'm not saying there is no cruelty in horse sports. Look up Tennessee Walking Horses and what those poor animals go through. Ditto *some* racing yards, *some* show jumping yards etc... Also 'lay people' with little to no experience backing foals or racing young horses on roads. Unfortunately when it comes to humans and animals not everyone is kind. I would still say riding a horse is not cruel. Use humane methods, be sympathetic and have patience and you will have an animal who would do anything you ask of him. My 2c anyway (Sorry this post is so long! :pac:)
Tarzana2 wrote: » Generally not.
sup_dude wrote: » No, OP. No.
ThinkProgress wrote: » A couple of quite hoofhearted responses there... :P Would either of you care to elaborate on your reasoning for holding that view?
sup_dude wrote: » You're telling me that something that can weigh up to a ton on mostly muscle could be coaxed into doing something it really doesn't want to do by something that is 10 times smaller than it? Have you ever tried to get a horse to do anything that it really doesn't want to do? I have. It cannot be done. If a horse does not want you on its back, you will not be on its back. What breaking does is not forcing them into accepting a rider, it is showing them that they have nothing to fear by having a rider on their back.
ThinkProgress wrote: » Yes. They showed it with killer whales in seaworld. They had studies that suggested the whales were less happy in captivity than in the wild. But they still did what they were told even though they had the power to kill their trainers with relative ease! There are examples with lots of other animals too. How do you know with such certainty that horses are happy with us on their backs? How do you know they're not just suffering through it and making the best of their situation. Just because an animal stops fighting something, doesn't mean it's perfectly content with it's situation. They could just be too gentle and passive to keep struggling. Not all animals are "fighters"... some are gentle and peaceful creatures!
ThinkProgress wrote: » I don't think that's the crux of the point they're trying to make though. I'd imagine they're talking more about the fact that (given a choice) would a horse prefer to be roaming free in a wild herd or galloping around with reigns in it's mouth and a human on it's back? What you are referring to, is more the logistical issue of what we would do with all the horses if we suddenly decided it was wrong to ride around on their backs. (both valid discussions - but also slightly separate. One is about morality. The other is about logistics and planning)
But you could argue that we've trained and bred them to be working animals. Somewhat against their natural purpose. Were they created on this planet to serve us and carry us around?
When you look at zebras in the wild in africa... (very closely related to european/eurasian horses) Do you feel the instinct to saddle them up and ride around on them? When I look at a zebra, I have no desire to tame it or sit on it's back. I'm just happy to look at it and admire how beautiful it is... I imagine they might be the closest example we have left, to show us the true nature of our modern day horses.
They're friendly, trusting and good natured animals... but does this mean that they want you sitting on their back?
I have no doubt that people care about their horses, and try to treat them well... no doubt about that at all. But that's not really the point I'm making here.
Perhaps the most humane thing would be to not sit on their back and ride them around?
There was a time in human history where horses were an essential part of our life. We simply would not have achieved the things we did without them... But now in 2015, riding a horse is almost exclusively about human pleasure. We no longer NEED horses for travel or heavy labor.
Yes they have individual personalities.... but generally speaking, they are far more gentle and passive than any other animal of comparable size and strength. I think that's why they became so important to us over the years. They have a perfect combination of size/strength/athleticism - but are also gentle and relatively non-aggressive.
It's probably a big part of the reason we ride them instead of eating them. (they're more useful and versatile than cows - and have a better temperment)
Perhaps a quick humane death might be preferable to being forced into 20-30 years of servitude with someone sitting on your back?
How do we really know what a horse wants? Would you choose to carry someone around on your back for your whole life - when your ancestors were free to roam where ever they wished with nothing weighing them down?
So what you're saying is that horses have not changed much from their ancestors who roamed free and uninhibited on open plains...?
I know they're strong, but that still doesn't mean they want you on their back. Just because they're able to do it... doesn't mean they'd choose that life. (if they had a choice).
You make some excellent points about horse welfare and treatment standards. But I think you're mixing up horse welfare/general treatment, with the very basic idea of "do they want us on their back?" AND "Is that what they were put on this earth to do?"
I'm not questioning horse welfare or people's love and feeling for their horses... I'm just simply questioning if horses were put on this earth to be our servants and/or entertainment? Or were they put here to roam free like their zebra cousins in africa?
sup_dude wrote: » Due to an indepth understanding of horses? Due to the fact there have been countless studies involving taking cortisol levels from horses, often with them mounted? Also, if you know horses, you know that they aren't all passive. Some are far from gentle. Some have absolutely no problem dumping you on the ground, or pinning you against the wall if you do something they don't like. Some horses you can tell what do to. Some you have to ask very very nicely. Horses are very powerful and potentially dangerous animals. Some are civil, some aren't. The vast majority of them are willful and most trainers strive to keep that willfulness, to have the horse capable of thinking for itself. There are some cases of cruelty, definitely and there's no denying that but on a whole, the riding of horses is not cruel and if a horse didn't want to do something, it won't.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/94c103d48d227f267ada7b8fb9e0ae4a.svg)
