Every argument I've had about horse racing being animal abuse has been locked; let's have another.

Yes, I think horse racing is wrong. As wrong as dog racing, as wrong as cock fighting, as wrong as forcing animals to perform in circuses.

It's animal abuse, plain and simple.

The fact that it's animal abuse by rich people does nothing to alleviate the fact that it's abusive.

There, I said it.

Stop horse racing.

:P

Personally, I despise horse racing and the mentality that goes along with it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zKQgTiqhPbw

"Oh - wow! - you managed through force, coercion, threats, and abuse to get a horse to prance around in rhythm to some really shitty music while equally vapid and braindead assholes cheer you on! You, sir, are a fucking athlete!!!"

:eyes:

Those outfits they wear look kind of "dominatrix-y" except for the hats.

you might want to read up about it ;)

Wikipedia - Dressage

And according to one of the participants of another of the locked horse-racing threads, the horses are not mistreated and are not started until they have finished growing, so none of the problems those racehorses are having (or getting.)

Then again, I've known about dressage for decades, having once happened upon a PBS show of The Spanish Riding School Vienna. It was truly "horse ballet" :)

The horses in the Derby are 3 year olds which means they are under saddle before they are 2 in order to race in the races they need to qualify.

A horse is not fully grown until it is 4 or 5 (at least). Personally (and I have owned, ridden and trained horses all my life), the only reason I would be on the back of a 3 year old would be to get it used to the idea - I would not be actively riding it. I don't start riding a horse until it is at least 4 and has the growth, balance and bone to stand it.

Racing puts an incredible strain on a horse's body.

per my post. I have learned already that racehorses are not fully grown, but dressage horses usually are.

:)

Dressage horses are doing movements under saddle, on cue, that they naturally do in the wild. I know that for many, dressage is akin to watching paint dry, but wtf?? Different strokes for different folks and all that....

I have to say, you are so ignorant of the sport - no amount of "force, coercion, threats, and abuse" will get you the cooperation required to properly do dressage, ever. The trust levels are incredible and honed over a DECADE or more together. If any horse were being abused for 10 years, it would not be a dressage horse - it would be dead.

I don't do musical kurs (the dressage sport whereby the test is ridden to music). That's a rather new competition addition (riding to music used to be more for entertainment than serious competition) but I've seen some pretty great rides to music and wouldn't dare to presume to judge someone if that's how they maximize the horse's talent or find satisfaction for themselves.

For what it's worth, most dressage riders aren't pros - in fact very, very few of them are - and the "vapid, braindead assholes cheering them on" are just regular people who love horses and like the precision and cooperation of dressage. One of the most successful riders in the world is a lawyer (Klimke), another is a cop. Most dressage admirers could be typified by one of my boarder's. She's a teacher who has always ridden. Her daughter rode competitively with her mom until she was brain damaged in a car accident when she was 20 years old. Now the daughter's in a lot of physical and emotional pain until she gets on her mom's dressage horse. She rides with the stereo as loud as she can in the arena and for that time, looks pretty relaxed, tranquil and at peace. The mother is a teacher, and the hours she and her daughter spend at the barn, are their most valuable interaction with each other. Granted not all riders have disabled family members, but most riders count their horse as part of their family in my opinion.

And last I heard, pound for pound, racehorse jocks are the fittest athletes on the face of the planet. I KNOW that no matter how fit you or anyone else perceives themselves to be, you would not last 1 hour at my pace, with my horses. Training and competing horses isn't just some kinda passenger ride and it's a fool who believes they could get on and do what we do like it's some kind of lark. Good luck with that.

Lippizzaners make excellent dressage horses? I've seen Lippizzaners perform twice, and it looks like that's what they're doing. :)

A lot of the European breeds have the strength and body build to carry a rider and do those movements but Lippizzaners such as the ones in Vienna have carried on the traditions of the "high school" of dressage - many of them battle moves.

If you've seen them perform then you know that the riders barely move - they cue the horses with the lightest touch, the lightest breathing, the lightest movements of their seat and leg. There's no abuse or threats - the horses are full partners in the dance. They RUN to their trainers when they go get them to work.

I don't compete at that level in dressage (4th level for me, my husband competes at the FEI levels). I really admire the horses and riders with the patience, skill and partnership to successfully get to that level... count me in as one of the jerks in the audience I guess. :eyes:

My Oldenburg mare just turned 5 on Sunday. I've been training her in hand and I will back her this summer. She will still grow for about 2 more years. I've had her since she was born and she and I are partners who I hope will be together for another 25 yers or more.

I couldn't make it 1/2 way through that!!! It's equal parts funny and creepy as fuckin' get out.

Do the people who do that also pass around tea cups full of their own shit and compliment each other on the colour and smell?

never got it, never will.

It's wrong wrong wrong. Death and destruction is wrong.

aA

Just to make you feel better, there's this:

Maybe you should post this over in the Animal Neglect/Abuse Forum.

I don't consider horse racing to be abuse in and of itself.

I love animals of all sorts, particularly dogs and horses. I have since I was a wee tyke and I don't expect it will change in my lifetime. I don't anthropomorphise them, I admire them as they are.

My family has a dear friend; a woman who's been like a second mother to my brothers and me. Her family has been involved in Thoroughbred Horseracing for 3 generations. I assure you, they're not rich. From my experience with horseracing through these people I know that horses involved in racing are not tortured, beaten, starved, inbred, poisoned, drugged or made to behave in ways they're unhappy about.

The horses I've known have the same types of individual personalities as do many dogs and cats and human toddlers. They may lack the power of speech, but the do make their delights, fears and irritations known. I've never seen a horse cringe from a crop. They respond to them as though they weren't even there. But I do know that the horses want to run, just like I know that dogs want to poke their heads out the window of a moving car. (You possibly don't want to know the injury and euthanasia statistics on dogs injured doing this. I'm sure many would feel it abuse then, as well.)

The comparisons to cockfighting, dogfighting and the like are failed analogies to my thinking. In such spectacles as cockfighting and dogfighting, every animal who is engaged in the contest will be injured, probably maimed and one will likely die. I understand that the potential in horseracing is that 1 in a thousand race horses starting a race will sustain a life-threatening injury, and that is heartbreaking and appalling. It is however, nothing like the patently abusive statistics of cockfighting and the like. Further, it should be noted that the probabilities for a non-racing horse to sustain a life threatening injury is not substantially less.

The difficulty isn't with the Thoroughbred's speed, it's with the design of the horse. All horses, even the meaty Clydesdale are thousand-plus pound beasts on ankles not susbstatially larger than a human being's. And unfortunately, to heal an injury, a horse must stand on the injury.

Veterinary science has made great strides in it's ability to treat a horse's injury, in large part because of the vast sums of money put into equine medicine from the racing industry.

Contrary to your assertions, Polytrack is already making huge inroads in reducing stress fracture injuries and the severity of other types of injury in racing and is now mandatory in several states.

I very much respect the beliefs of those who feel this is abuse. I know they care about the beasties and that warms my heart. I just don't happen to agree that it's abusive to give a horse a safer, controlled forum for doing what horses do.

I have a friend who is a marine biologist specialising in Orca. We often bet amoungst ourselves as to which male Orcas will be selected for mating by a female. I don't consider that abuse either. Though, I do wish we made the waters of the world a bit safer and cleaner.

Peace. This is the last I'll say of this issue. Those who've attempted to *koff* persuade... me have employed some fairly ineffective techniques and while I appreciate emotional arguments more than most, I feel them not conducive to discussion.

I wish all those with a care for the creatures of the world the very best.

:hug:


look at these ankles...



when i weighed more
I worried


not now.....


the Amish use them to pull their buggys
and to till the fields a lot of people use them to till


not to different....

very hard work




lost


If Doc EVER showed any sign of discomfort I would not ride him
there is an awesome horse who is 30 years old in my barn

all he does is eat and run and play


his owners know it was time for him.....

there are good and kind horse owners.....

more than you thnk


lost

we are actually talking about the racing of junior horses, which I am against. A horse is not mature and fully developed until about the age of five, until then they are considered a "junior horse".

It is the racing of junior horses, that is something that I can get behind.

:7

There's a big part of me that reacts negatively to using animals for entertainment, whether circuses, zoos, racing, fighting, or whatever. Even if they are treated wonderfully, and might have an easier/better/safer life than in nature, I'm bothered with the idea of forcing an animal to perform and do tricks (or whatever) in order to enjoy that easier life; and then I wonder, do they really have an easier or better or safer life in that situation? And even if it's better/easier/safer, is it still acceptable? I'm not really sure. But I do wonder if we have an ethical right to do such things to animals, and the majority of the time, I come down on the side that no, we do not have that right, any more than we have the right to go in and wipe out all the wolves because they're interfering with our human lifestyle.

Oh, wait...I agree with you 100%.

Well shit, this IS a quandry.

Game of chess?

(Sorry, I'm compelled to say that every time some suggests a game of chess...)

who agree with you. Abuse for human entertainment and profit, pure and simple. :mad:

with everything you said.

Edit because I can't spell.

the sort of opinion I respect :headbang:

Honestly. You're not thinking it through.

Now, if you'd asked me to stop cooking pasta, well, I mean I wouldn't agree with your position or anything, but at least I'd be in a place I could stop. Having started.

Also, you think bears don't like driving little fire trucks? Well man, let me tell you, they love that shit. Who wouldn't?

Also, when you say "cock fighting," I just want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. :D

You can trash talk a lot of things, but I draw the line at the pasta. God Lord, Robb, have you no mercy? There are some of us who'd fail to survive without.

Oh, yes, horse racing sucks as does :wtf: horse dancing.

beautiful horses pampered by horse lovers.

All one needs to do is google "horse racing cruelty" to get a much different opinion. Anymore, I just figure if there's money and animals involved, it's 99% certain there is going to be abuse and cruelty involved too.

Americans kill'em and eat 'em and wear 'em; why not train 'em, race'em, and fight 'em?

I'm not giving up meat, I'm not giving up leather, I despise PETA, and I'm taking my kids to Ringling Brothers. There, I said it.

Of course, this isn't an argument; this is just contradiction.

"Americans kill'em and eat 'em and wear 'em; why not train'em, race'em, and fight'em?"

We live in an inherently savage world. The "operating system" is based on life devouring life. Many, if not most, people in the world have to "kill'em and eat'em and wear'em" in order to survive. Maybe technology will make that unnecessary someday, maybe not, who knows.

To answer your question as to "why not train'em, race'em, and fight'em?" I'll say because those things are not necessary for anything but your entertainment. Your reply says if we can eat'em we should be able to do anything we please with them, even something as despicable as "fight'em". That kind of logic doesn't even rise to being specious. It just doesn't make sense at all unless one doesn't regard animals as being worthy of humane treatment. I'm truly sorry this is how you and many others feel, and, since you mentioned your son, I'm doubly sorry that this is the attitude he will be taught. When I say "I'm sorry" I don't mean that in a condescending way, it's just sad that kindness seems to be such a low priority among so many. It's there, but it's just not as important as it should be in my view, and often kindness is considered weak or effeminate, or even stupid.

I'm not going to be able to say anything to you to change your mind. I wish I could but I can't. Most likely your mind is just as set on this as mine.

I probably shouldn't say this because I really don't know for sure, but I get the feeling that you enjoy confrontation. I get the feeling you're a Ted Nugent kind of guy when it comes to animals and if the opportunity to club a seal in front of a PETA member presented itself you would consider it a stroke of luck. The more obnoxious and repellent the better, right?

I admit I might be making an unwarranted assumption here, but you did say that you "despise" PETA. I'll take you at your word that you take issue with everything about them, even their goals as well as their tactics. I don't belong to PETA. I don't agree with their tactics and think many of them are counter-productive, but I do agree with their goals of humane, even kind, treatment of all living creatures and I just don't like people that despise that. There, now I said it.

And to play devil's advocate with my guy tonight, since we were having this conversation over dinner, I asked him why he doesn't disagree with the dog agility events we watch on TV. His answer summed it up best:

"No one's betting on the Border Collies."

Profit always tend to be the winner.

Something isn't right when a horse's ankles break at the end of a race. Either the race itself is forcing the animals to do something they're physically incapable of doing safely, or the horse has been bred in such a way that its ankles are ridiculously fragile. Or a combination of the two.

Regardless, forcing an animal to perform an activity which threatens their safety is abuse.

Even more so given the fact that horses often get euthanized for the injuries they sustain.

Using an animal for sport + a rather high likelihood of injury or death = abuse. Plain and simple.

And I don't watch horse races.

Glad you want to put a lot of blue collar people (jocks, groomers, warm up riders other stable hands) out of work! Unemployment is a GOOD thing right?
Sick of people who have never so much as stepped in a stable becoming judge jury and executioner.
Oh btw, alerting. Flame bait.

Now that's an interesting argument.

It's the same kind of twisted logic that would keep telegraph operators around, or people will go without jobs

I doubt you have. They love horses and don't want to do anything else with their lives.
Most of them make minimun wage or live at or below the poverty line.
I think its assinine to deprive people of their living and passion based on political beliefs with only a little basis on reality.
This kind of judgemental shit pisses me off. If people would actually go and SEE how these people live and how MUCH they enjoy their jobs, maybe people won't be so HEARTLESSLY judgemental about them.
Do you really think people take jobs shoveling shit because they can't do anything else? No.
In fact I paid once for an internship where I had to clean out my horses stall as part of the internship. A lot of them would do it for free if they could

they love so much? I think it's asinine to say that horse racing is ok simply because the stable hands love what they do and love shoveling shit and making poverty wages. As DS1 pointed out, that would be like keeping telegraph operators employed. It's a hard fact of life that we progress and have to redefine the jobs we have to go along with our progress. It would be progress to end the "sport" of horse-racing (and bullfighting and dog-racing). Sports that intentionally use and abuse animals for our entertainment and profit. Those people will have to find other jobs, just like telegraph operators had to. Just like I've had to.

The better breeding and racing stock will likely be exported to Europe, Japan, or the UAE. I'm guessing that dealing with the reaminder would be an animal-welfare nightmare.

Shoot 'em all? Turn them loose into the wild?

How about donating them to poor farmers? To farmers in other countries even? There are so many things we can do other than continue to abuse them.

My family has bred and raced horses for the better part of 35 years. I know a thing or two about what goes on. I am under no illusion that the sport is perfect. But "abuse" is by no means the norm.

if racing were outlawed?

But... but... I thought they all loved their horses!!

On a serious note, I can't imagine that very many owners of horses would give up their horses, so your "what would we do with the horses?" argument is utterly craptastic.

There are shitloads of horse lovers in this world - to suggest that horses would have nowhere to go is fucking ludicrous.

And if you are truly serious that they'd have nowhere to go, then that speaks very ill of the current owners.

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/17051.htm

Death of a Derby Winner: Slaughterhouse Likely Fate for Ferdinand
Email Print RSS
by Ray Paulick
Date Posted: July 25, 2003
Last Updated: July 25, 2003
Death of a Derby Winner: Slaughterhouse Likely Fate for Ferdinand
1986 Kentucky Derby winner Ferdinand, with Bill Shoemaker aboard.

Ferdinand, the 1986 Kentucky Derby winner who went on to capture the following year's Horse of the Year title with a dramatic victory over 1987 Derby hero Alysheba in the Breeders' Cup Classic, is dead. The Blood-Horse has learned the big chestnut son of Nijinsky II died sometime in 2002, most likely in a slaughterhouse in Japan, where his career at stud was unsuccessful.

Reporter Barbara Bayer, as detailed in an exclusive story in the July 26 issue of The Blood-Horse, attempted to learn of Ferdinand's whereabouts after a member of the Howard Keck family that owned and bred the horse inquired about having him returned to the United States, where he began his career at stud. As a racehorse, Ferdinand won eight of 29 starts and earned $3,777,978, retiring as what was then the fifth leading money winner of all time. His victory in the Kentucky Derby gave trainer Charlie Whittingham his first success in that classic, and it was the final career Derby win for jockey Bill Shoemaker.

Ferdinand was retired to stud in 1989 at Claiborne Farm near Paris, Ky., where he was foaled. His initial stud fee was $30,000 live foal, but he achieved little success as a stallion from his first few crops of runners.

Sold to Japan's JS Company in the fall of 1994 at a time when Japanese breeding farms were aggressively pursuing American and European breeding stock, Ferdinand spent six breeding seasons at Arrow Stud on the northern island of Hokkaido, from 1995-2000. Initially popular with local breeders (he was mated to 77 mares his first year), Ferdinand was bred to just 10 mares in his final year at Arrow, and his owners opted to get rid of him. (Continues at link)

Last week I adopted a wild mustang from the BLM. The BLM put on a two day event and they had 22 horses needing homes. They only found homes for two horses. Reading this thread I'm starting to see why liberals are laughed at by some.

And, yes, I'm sure you can see why liberals are laughed at now. Cute.

but the horse racing industry needs to be cleaned up. I'm a liberal and I walk the walk so to speak.

To make money for the people who own and race the horses. With that it's inevitable that regulations or not, people will abuse the horses. It does need to be cleaned up, by doing away with it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

from riding horses to driving cars! What if people a century ago had said "We can't use horseless carriages! What'll happen to the horses?!" Well, what happened was that fewer of them were bred. Those that were alive lived out their lives, and the low demand led to less breeding. The same would happen if horse racing ceased. Hardly a crisis. Nor a good reason to continue abusing animals.

If we don't like what happens to some unwanted racehorses now, I'm fairly sure we won't like what happens if tens of thousands of horses are rendered worthless by a reactionary government fiat.

What could be simpler? If these people love the horses as much as you claim, taking care of them into old age won't be a hardship. I suspect, though, that the problem is that they won't be generating money, which is their real purpose. So much for the theory that people do this for the love of the animal.

So, really, we never should have freed the slaves because the sin of slavery was far outweighed by the social problem of not enough jobs for the African Americans?

Wow, so the horse racing thing is now not so much about the fun of racing, or the beauty of the animals, or the love of horses - it's about the "white man's burden" of the horse owners.

Phew. Your argument was fucking stinky in the 1800s, and it's fucking stinky today.

If you want to defend horse racing by claiming it's not unethical, that's fine - I disagree, but at least it makes sense. But to argue that we need to keep it because, gee, what would the horses do? is ridiculous.

so they don't abuse them over there. :eyes:

:sarcasm:

OR something along those lines. Mind you, I'm not lumping everyone there IN together. I can DO the capitals FOR emphasis too!

I don't think horse racing is as cruel as it's being made out to be, but to argue for keeping it around just so someone can shovel shit for free is a bit off the hook.

and got laid off when Gov Davis didn't want on-line betting. A year later he changed his mind. We were happy until the thugs moved to Los Angeles from Colorado and took over with their "only managers get window offices" attitudes. But what can you expect from a company right next to nuclear warheads and Columbine High School.

Wouldn't there still be stables, and the like for horses even it there were not racing. The wealthy and not so wealthy would still own horses and would still need the services of the people you refer to.

:shrug:

and that we laughed and sang as the chimney sweeps lost their jobs and giggled with untrammeled delight as the unemployed court jesters slowly starved to death.

:eyes:

What a stupid argument.

So, by your logic, those poor baby seal fur gatherers should be allowed their trade. The whalers should be left alone. The people who make a living off dogfighting have to continue their job.

Nonsense.

Gee, and thanks for the oh-so-mature warning that you alerted. So grown up.

:eyes:

and the 'buildings' they live in at most tracks are decrepit and usually rat infested.

Never saw a horse barn that didn't have rats.

I had forgotten the realities of it for a couple of days. I'm thankful I didn't watch the derby with my daughter like I had mentioned. It would have broken her heart.

but to compare it to dog racing or cock fighting or dog fighting is just ridiculous. Dog racing has a long history of starvation and abuse to get the dogs to run. The last two are specifically aimed at getting two or more animals to fight, often to the death. To compare them to horse racing is just silly. There's no comparison.

The purpose of a dog fight is to make them fight to the death.

If you can't see a difference than you need to check your contrast setting. Because there's a big difference between jet black and medium grey.

Or have you forgotten?

That's the sound of my point, flying far, far over your head.

Don't put words in my mouth.

This death was a result of an accident. Not design. The intent of a horse race is not to hurt the horses. That was an unfortunate side effect. The intent of a horse race is to let them run around in circles and see who's faster. The intent of a dogfight or cockfight is to hurt, maim or kill one of the two animals. I'm not saying that horse racing is pure as snow, but it is NOTHING like a dogfight. The people who race horses don't set out to hurt them. The same can certainly not be said about those who force dogs to fight.

And while we're at it...

Can we once and for all stop the inexcusibly cruel "sport" of bullfighting?

Just asking

They shoot horses don't they?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7709704

I think owning animals as pets is wrong.

:popcorn:

My cats own me.

Who's got the collar and who has the vet bills?

Vaccines and flea medicine are current,
and the vet bills are paid.

n/t

The human master-animal relationship is patronizing and demeaning to the animal. I feel animals would be better off the less interest humans have in them.

You will please note that this is a purely personal belief. I have zero interest in taking people's pets\working animals away from them.

Even though the law sees it otherwise, I don't view the animals in my care as my property any more than you might view your children as property, even though in both cases we are the parties responsible for the medical bills (and the cats go in a carrier for safety wen being transported, just as some put harnesses on toddlers for their safety). The word 'pet' trivializes what it means to care for an animal, and care means more than just feeling affection or providing adequate food, water and shelter.

As for whether or not they want to live with us ... some research into the domestication of cats suggests that cats did become domesticated in part because cats thought it was a good idea (I'm summarizing, of course). If all domesticated 'pet' animals disappeared, I wonder how long before (or if) certain species would seek to domesticate themselves.

I'm not rich, I'm an electrician. I don't beat my horses or use performance enhancing drugs on my horses. Or steroids on the babies. If they don't want to race I keep them at the farm or try to find them homes with good people. I don't send them to the killers. All my horses vaccinations are up to date. They are on a deworming program. They see a vet regularly. I don't race them when they are injured. I give them time off to come home to the farm and just be horses. I don't think I'm the exception to the rule. I think most people in the business treat their horses as I do. The problem is that not all the folks in this business give a damn about horses. I really believe it's just a handful of assholes that give all of us a bad name. It seems like it's always the same couple of people that get the fines and medication violation suspensions.

Everytime I see a breakdown I question what we do. I don't want any horse to suffer. I love horses. My best friend, Curly, is a horse.

I took a look at PETA's online petition about making horse racing safer. Their demands are not unreasonable. As a matter of fact I'd like to see a couple of other issues raised. Standardized medication regulation. No Bute. No Lasix. Lifetime bans for trainers that 'milkshake' horses. Lifetime bans for Cobra Venom. Owners should be held accountable too. If you're an owner that isn't aware of what your trainer is doing to your horse you don't need to own a horse.

Just my two cents.

:hi:

Two horses just died at Rolex and so my sport is undergoing a lot of scrutiny right now.

I also agree with a lot of PETA's suggestions and signed their petition in support. Imho, the horses are raced too young and that causes a lot of breakdowns on the track. If they were raced at 3 or better yet, 4, that would improve the situation considerably. For us, in our experience (50+ years combined) most top event horses wash out at the track since they aren't fast enough but they make excellent sport horses who go on for many servicable years after their racing days are done so it's not as though racing HAS to be disastrous. We already cannot compete on bute or other performance enhancing drugs - random drug tests on horses are routine. I believe this makes sense from a humanitarian perspective but also because I'm an animal lover.

In fairness to racing, a high profile death in a high profile race makes it appear that there are always deaths on the track. In reality though, there are literally millions of horses racing on any given day, around the world, without problems or breakdowns.

but, every jurisdiction is different and that is a big problem. We need a national organization to set rules and the ability to really punish offenders. And as for racing babies: Let's stop doing it. No 2YO races.

I agree with you, Rabrrrrrr.

Previously, I was led to believe the horses were "treated very well"
because of their monetary value on the track and in breeding.

However, watching what is happening at the highest level of horse
racing in this country- I now disagree.

the owners is there.

Once that goes away, so does the horse.

:(

sport where the investment is alive makes it seem so.

Most of the horses I was around at Hialeah or Saratoga were well cared for, but some of them were so high strung, they were never going to be good racers. Couldn't get out of the gate, things like that.

Those are the horses I felt for, because the investment in them had been high, whether they were purchased at the yearling auction or bred of a dam and sire who had pleased the owners/trainers, and they were going to disappoint.

They are beautiful creatures though. Nothing like sitting on your porch watching them walk/trot through the paddock on a gorgeous spring morning. Those scenes are what make what happened to Eight Belles surreal to me. Almost completely different worlds.

I can only imagine how beautiful it was to see them on a gorgeous morning.


They are absolutely stunning with their beauty.

;-)

so if this has been covered, I apologize.

Rabrrrrr, how, philosophically, do you reconcile this stance with a non-vegan lifestyle?

Isn't raising a cow or chicken for consumption far greater "animal abuse" than raising a horse to do what horses seem to love to do?

I have a feeling that, someday, I might very well become a vegetarian for ethical reasons.

But for now, I think the main difference is that raising animals for food is at least honest - there is no pretending about how much one loves the animal (though I know many meat raisers who DO love their animals), that it is better off than if it weren't being farmed and so on. They are always, upfront and honestly, dedicated to eventual slaughter (or to egg production until they're no longer productive, and then slaughtered).

The racers, circuses, and so forth live in a pretend world that suggests their animals are actually really happy, love what they are doing, and are better off than in the wild, and that they are very well loved and taken care of. Some of which might be true, but the real ultimate reason for having that animal is that it generates income, and once it ceases being an income generator, it is discarded. And in some, the method of income generating is dangerous to the animal.

While it is also possibly bad to raise an animal solely to eat it later, I have to give it credit for its honesty. And also, the function of most animals is to be food for something, and in that sense, eating an animal isn't as bad to me. Same goes with hunting - it's honest, and it provides nourishment (except for the assholes who hunt and leave the animal, or poach them for their tusks, or other bullshit).

Now, as to the issue of the factory farming - the factories that treat animals poorly are deplorable, and I hope that someday we can close them down and force them to be more humane. I'm glad that so much stink has been raised in the last ten years or so, and that things are somewhat changing. Not as fast as I would like, but they are changing.

I also know there's another level of ethics involving land wasted for pastures, land wasted raising food for the animals, and pollution.

I've had family that have raised animals for food, and they treated their animals (outside of the eventual slaughtering) like family - because they wanted the animals to stay healthy, and because they knew the people who bought the animal's meat and the buyer's knew them: lots of incentive to have healthy, good animals. Factory farming doesn't care - no one knows where the beef in a grocery store came from, and when a factory is dealing with 10,000 animals, who cares if a few get sick and die?

I hope that helps. I can't say that eating animals is ipso facto ethical, but I also can't quite come down on the side that it's ipso facto unethical. It's in a gray area.

I like the ethic of the farmers in my family, that try to grow much of their own food, have some pigs to eat the slop and leftovers, have chickens for eggs, a rooster or two to help make new chickens, some horses to do some work, a cow or a goat for milk for drinking or making cheese or butter - and when the animal gets old, then they eat it, and let the animal's children carry on the duties on the farm.

I think if we approach it honestly - admitting that slaughtering an animal is, no matter how gently one does it, a form of abuse, then it's not quite as bad as abusing an animal and pretending that one is its savior.

So if I breed and race horses it's the same as cockfighting and beating circus animals but, if you or your family raises animals and slaughters and eat them well, that's a gray area ethically. Bwahahaha.

Race horses are used to generate income and that's bad. Livestock are butchered for sale and it's a gray area.

You are so full of shit.

So which gray area am I transgressing?

I use the draft horses to spread manure and work my organic market garden. I've also raised animals for food, and treat my animals (outside of the eventual slaughtering) like family - because I've wanted the animals to stay healthy, and because I've known the people who bought the animal's meat and the buyer's know me: lots of incentive to have healthy, good animals.

I try to grow much of our own food.

I broke and trained the pony to pull a cart and plan to use her to get me to the local grocery store that just opened 2 miles away several days/week instead of a car or truck.

I ride, train, breed, and sell sporthorses to supplement my small family farming income without which my organic produce business could not exist. I need the income from this to complete my diverse small farming operation. In fact, this is the major source of income that subsidizes the rest. These are sport horses who compete in an industry as heavily scrutinized for abuse as racing (dressage and combined training). I also want those animals to stay healthy, because I know the people who buy them and love them: lots of incentive to have healthy, good animals.

I honestly work my trade. So where's that line again?

Most of our lives are spent in gray areas, with no clear "line" as to where something falls on a moral/ethical basis. Some things might be clear, most things are not.

Maybe I'm just a naive romantic, but the old style peasant/family farm is a kind of a pure thing to me: people growing their own food, recycling their waste through their animals, recycling their animal waste into the gardens, putting the animals to work but treating them kindly, eating them when they get old, canning and freezing vegetables, eating seasonally, and so forth. It's a natural way of living with nature.

But I also believe that we humans can't just assume that every animal or thing on this planet is here for our pleasure or use. IF we use it, I think we have some ethical responsibility to use it for good and necessary purposes, and to treat it as fairly and with as much kindness as possible, whether it be a cow or horse, or a river, lake, or forest.

And thus, my post to which you responded is swimming in ambiguity the entire time, because of the truth that we humans cannot live, in any way, completely free of impact on the environment. No matter what we do, we're disrupting some kind of natural life, whether plant or animal or mineral.

And that's pretty much all gray area, with the best answer being, "Are you striving to do the best you can do, with kindness and compassion to the things you are disrupting, and are you being honest about what you are doing?" Honesty of intent is a big criteria for me.

about people in the horse industry without any idea about their kindness, compassion, or honest intent. Did the owner of the filly break down and bawl when she was euthanized? Did that owner breed, train, love, feed, caretake her in his backyard? We don't know any of that and the assumption that the owners of racehorses are all major assholes just sucks. Yes, some are assholes but in my experience the vast majority are not.

Horses run. In a herd. Naturally. Humans watch that and yes, we manipulate that instinct. Horses don't naturally pull thousands of pounds of weight for hours at a time either but we've manipulated them into doing that too (your "ideal old style peasant farm" usage of horses). We use and manipulate animals all of the time and although I realize people will make value judgements about animal usage I just wanted to make you stop and think about those judgements. I can't live that "pure family farm" ideal without the commercial aspects of a training farm. Pretty much nobody can. Most have off farm jobs to support their endeavors.

So a personal story about kindliness. The only racehorse owner I know is my vet, Dr. John Wiseman of the Illinois Equine Field Service. He and his wife Candy have maybe 40 horses in their backyard, they live about 2 miles from me. They breed their horses at their farm, train and race at Arlington. He's loves and admires the power, beauty and pure drive to run of thoroughbreds. He's also as compassionate as anyone I've ever known. He grieves when he loses one of his or when we lose one of ours. He's lost them at the track and at home just like us. Shit happens. One morning our farm manager came to work at 6 am and discovered one of our geldings standing in the paddock with his leg broken - who knows how he did it, there wasn't a single clue as to how it happened. My employee called the Field Service but the other vet who was on call was out at a birth, so he called me and I called John. Within 5 minutes he was there and put that horse out of his misery. And then waited with Griffin, for me to get there 25 minutes later. When I arrived, he was sitting next to the horse, singing. He got up as I walked towards them, gave me a big hug and left. As is usual with him when he loses a horse - either one of his own or one of his clients - he and his wife made a donation in our names to the University of Illinois Vet School.

I know many people have major problems with racing. And racing has some major problems. I sincerely hope they get to making some serious changes. I don't go to the track unless it's to the back side to look at a horse that's run too slow and needs to find a new career as an event horse. I intensely dislike seeing the horses run so young but racing too has it's gray areas and honest intent and kindness and compassion. It's all there in that world just like it is in most industries. Thanks for listening.

...Or "This horse loves to win," etc., said often of champion race horses. As far as I know, animals don't understand human constructs such as racing, winning, sports, etc. Horses may enjoy running fast, especially those who've been bred for that skill, but the idea that a horse thinks in terms of first-place, or beating another horse at some game is, to my mind, ludicrous.

I'm with you. Anthropomorphizing to an almost evil extent.

Yeah, like a horse loves the jockey so much it's thinking "This guy wants me to run fast - then I'm gonna be the run fastiest horse here! I want him to be proud of me!"

Bullshit, it's running fast because it's being forced to run fast.

Ludicrous, indeed.

Yep, some of them do and the people who began racing as an industry are/were capitalizing on horse's instincts to run in a pack or herd, and that the "leader" of the pack will fight to be in front.

I agree that the horses don't give a shit about what their jockey wants. If a horse has the drive to be the leader of the herd, and the stamina to stay in front of that herd, they will win that race. I also wouldn't assign any other motive than herd dynamics. I really dislike the anthropomorphizing that is endemic to MOST animal owners, not restricted to horses. Anthropomorphizing is dangerous in my view as a trainer.

...and am glad you mentioned that. You're the expert, and I am not. Would this "leader of the herd" instinct be similar to the "alpha-male" when we talk about canines, for instance?

In any case, when it comes to horses (and other animals), we humans have bred them, over centuries, to behave more or less the way we want them to.

We've anthropomorphized God, animals and, more recently, machines. I wonder what's next.

if there's a herd. And the herd defers to them, follows them etc. And just like canines there is a (usually pretty vicious) fight to establish that pecking order. I will say though, that with running - that's not been "bred" into them to do that... they just do it anyway. We have bred the TBs especially to run a long distance. Other cultures breed their own home grown horses independently of the Europeans (TB) such as the Bedouins (Arabs) or Quarter Horses (western states although places like Australia bred their own range type runners) to run their own particular length of race. But running in a herd certainly isn't something we've artificially created them to do....

Interestingly, there's a lot of industry speculation that Man O'War wasn't a true TB but rather a mix - if ever proved, he would blow the lid off TB purity and racing....

...by the way, couldn't they do a DNA check on Man O'War to determine if he was a mix? I mean, aren't his remains duly enshrined somewhere?

But I don't think a DNA test would tell them anything about his origins. What the controversy was was England passed the Jersey Act to protect their bloodstock and to keep American horses out of their Stud Book. Like a lot of US horses, one of Man O War's ancestors wasn't registered in the Stud Book (I think it was his 2nd or 3rd dam). But that's all changed. It didn't work out well for the Brits. We raided their bloodstock and imported them here, they recinded the Jersey Act and now they are over here buying up all our best horses.

and the leader is in front.

THAT'S what drives the most successful racehorses and you can't "make" a horse want to be the leader unless they want it. I take exception to whipping for that reason.

Horses DO think in terms of "first place" in a race but not for the reasons WE want them to think about being in first place.

I have owned horses for 38 years. I have rode horses who never wanted to let another horse pass them in a race. I had a horse that soon as he heard another horse getting close he'd go into over drive, it was the best feeling I've ever had. We used to race along an old WW2 grass runway in England. OMG my horse used to get so excited when he knew we were going there, I could hardly hold him back. They are herd animals and even when a jockey falls off a horse will keep racing, even over jumps. And just what are most of you 'animal lovers' eating for dinner tonight?
The problems are they are racing the horses too young and there has to be a huge breeding problem with weak legs and fetlocks in some of these race horses.
By the way we raced each other for fun and because the horses LOVED it so much.

a blueberry muffin, and cran-raspberry juice. With a cup of tofutti for dessert. What's your point?

Most people who complain about animal cruelty EAT THEM. That's my point. Haven't you ever noticed that? I notice it all the fucking time and it PISSES me off!
Horse love to race and cows hate being killed.
Some high school kid dropped dead while running track...quick BAN IT!

And no one was sitting on his back whipping him. Or do you do track differently in the UK?

where I live who get into sports because it's expected of them. There where 12 kids in my oldest sons class and all the boys except my son were on the football team. You were considered shit if you weren't in sports. One kid killed himself because of pressure from his parents, he was small and skinny and kept breaking bones in football.
I don't know what the fuck they do in track in the UK anymore but I'm betting they don't beat the kids. I'm amazed you had to ask such a question! Sarcasm face wasn't there you know.
It's stupid to think a riding crop or whip makes a horse run!! It doesn't HURT them!! I live and breath horses everyday. My god if a horse was being abused he would give someone a good toss.
You can't work with a horse by being mean to it. Girls can ride as good if not better than men because horses respond to a gentle touch. Horses hate mean nasty people that's why Bush keeps away from horses, they hate him.

and the gene pool is waaaaay too small. Every horse that started in the Derby was a direct descendant of Native Dancer. In fact, 75% of horses racing in America are of Native Dancer's line. But, Native Dancer, while unquestionably an excellent race horse, had problems with his feet. That is showing up in the genetic line. Combine that with pushing horses to run at age 2, well before their legs have knit properly, and the fact that horses are being bred back into the line (distantly related horses are being bred to each other), and you've got a recipe for disaster. Think hemophilia in the descendants of Queen Victoria and the Russian royal family.

they are not fully developed, poor horses
Carly

Lets say there are 32,000 foals in a given year. Your perception of racing is that
all two year olds are forced to race, thus hurting their chances of a sound future.

Where this idea comes from, I don't know. But I have been in the business since 1969
in every capacity imaginable and can tell you with certainty that out of the 32,000
horses, maybe a few thousand will race at two. Sometime in April, the tracks start
writing races for two year olds at short distances of four and a half furlong - a little
more than half a mile. Most track with only write two year old races one, maybe two
days a week. So figure that out of your 32,000 horses, maybe eight or ten will race
at that track that day. The only horses that would fill these races would be the
rare individuals that happened to have progressed through their training with no
physical problems. They would have breezed enough to be fit and strong for their first
race. The rest of the later developing horses would be in light training or turned out
for a while until they were ready to train.

This is one of the misconceptions that will not die even when well meaning people
are presented with the facts. The great majority of two year olds will never see
a race in the afternoon. Toward the end of their two year, some horses start to
come around and are ready to start either on dirt or turf - whatever their preference
may be.

Where I stand in disagreement with many of my fellow horseman is that the two year
old in training sales are what should be done away with. The horses breeze only an
eight of a mile, maybe two furlongs, but it is too early in the year for them to be
doing it.


What should be changed in horse racing is the breeding of unsound horse with appalling
conformation defects. In the old days when super wealthy family dynasties controlled
racing and breeding, crooked legged or unsound horses did not go the breeding shed.
The high sales prices at the yearling sales have encouraged everyone with a filly
or mare or a decently bred colt with a pair of balls to enter it into the gene pool.
THAT is the practice that has to stop.

Racing has been with us for centuries and should not die out because the most ill informed
members of our society when it comes to horse racing have declared the right to end it.

I'm an eventer so my experience with the track is all on the backside, after the horses have finished their racing career.

I knew there was someone on DU who actually galloped on the track but couldn't remember your username to give you a PM to jump into this conversation. I galloped for a winter, more than 25 years ago, for a steeplechase trainer in Sydney which means I know shit about racing. Glad you chimed in.

Peace.

And I wonder how many wew never hear about. Until something is done to protect the horses (maybe requiring a minimum age or five before a horse is permitted to race), I say we need a moratorium on horse racing.

I can't articulate my thoughts any better than SOteric did, so I will just state that I agree with her point of view.

Its okay to post flame bait as long as its YOUR opinion and its popular. God I hate the hypocrisy on this site.

:shrug:

:shrug:

And in neither one was I really sure why - like this one, they had some heated words, but no flamewarring.

And thus, this is not a continuation of any flamewar.

I still stand mystified as to why the OP's asked the other ones to be locked.

:kick: you piece of shit